similar to: Replacing SW RAID-1 with SSD RAID-1

On 11/23/20 10:46 AM, Simon Matter wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I want to replace my hard drives based SW RAID-1 with SSD's. >> >> What would be the recommended procedure? Can I just remove one drive, >> replace with SSD and rebuild, then repeat with the other drive? > > I suggest to "mdadm --fail" one drive, then "mdadm --remove" it.

Backup!!!!!!!! Von meinem iPhone gesendet > Am 23.11.2020 um 17:10 schrieb centos at niob.at: > > ?On 23/11/2020 16:49, Frank Bures wrote: >> On 11/23/20 10:46 AM, Simon Matter wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I want to replace my hard drives based SW RAID-1 with SSD's. >>>> >>>> What would be the recommended procedure?

On 23/11/2020 16:49, Frank Bures wrote: > On 11/23/20 10:46 AM, Simon Matter wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I want to replace my hard drives based SW RAID-1 with SSD's. >>> >>> What would be the recommended procedure?? Can I just remove one drive, >>> replace with SSD and rebuild, then repeat with the other drive? >> >> I suggest to

On 23/11/2020 17:16, Ralf Prengel wrote: > Backup!!!!!!!! > > Von meinem iPhone gesendet You do have a recent backup available anyway, haven't you? That is: Even without planning to replace disks. And testing such strategies/sequences using loopback devices is definitely a good idea to get used to the machinery... On a side note: I have had a fair number of drives die on me

> Hi, > > I want to replace my hard drives based SW RAID-1 with SSD's. > > What would be the recommended procedure? Can I just remove one drive, > replace with SSD and rebuild, then repeat with the other drive? I suggest to "mdadm --fail" one drive, then "mdadm --remove" it. After replacing the drive you can "mdadm --add" it. If you boot from

> On 23/11/2020 17:16, Ralf Prengel wrote: >> Backup!!!!!!!! >> >> Von meinem iPhone gesendet > > You do have a recent backup available anyway, haven't you? That is: Even > without planning to replace disks. And testing such strategies/sequences > using loopback devices is definitely a good idea to get used to the > machinery... > > On a side note: I

Has anyone installed a high I/O application such as an email server on SSD drives? Was thinking about doing two SSD's in RAID1. It would solve my I/O latency issues but I have heard that SSD's wear out quickly in high I/O situations? Something like each memory location only has X many writes before its done. Just wandering if anyone has tested it and if newer SSD's are better about

On Fri, September 8, 2017 9:48 am, hw wrote: > m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: >> hw wrote: >>> Mark Haney wrote: >> <snip> >>>> BTRFS isn't going to impact I/O any more significantly than, say, XFS. >>> >>> But mdadm does, the impact is severe. I know there are ppl saying >>> otherwise, but I??ve seen the impact myself, and I

Hi, I am thinking to change sata disk for /home and I want to know if change to a SSD hd, is a good option. I have 30-40 accounts with 30-50K email in boxes. -- Saludos!! Luciano Andino GNU/Linux user #185103 Santa Fe - Argentina -----------------------------------------------

James Szinger wrote: > Disclaimer: My $dayjob is with a government contractor, but I am speaking > as private citizen. > > Talk to your organization's computer security people. They will have a > standard procedure for getting rid of dead disks. We on the internet > can't > know what they are. I'm betting it involves some degree of paperwork. > > Around

I'm just about to build a new server and I'm looking for recommendations on what hardware to use. I'm happy with either a brand name, or building my own, but would like a hardware RAID controller to run a pair of disks as RAID1 that is actually compatible with and manageable through Linux. Any recommendations would be appreciated. Gary

On 08/09/2017 10:46 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: > If it's a bad sector problem, you'd write to sector 17066160 and see if the > drive complies or spits back a write error. It looks like a bad sector in > that the same LBA is reported each time but I've only ever seen this with > both a read error and a UNC error. So I'm not sure it's a bad sector. > > What is

On Fri, September 8, 2017 11:07 am, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 8 September 2017 at 11:00, Valeri Galtsev <galtsev at kicp.uchicago.edu> > wrote: >> >> On Fri, September 8, 2017 9:48 am, hw wrote: >>> m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: >>>> hw wrote: >>>>> Mark Haney wrote: >>>> <snip> >>>>>> BTRFS

Hi folks, For people who might be interested, here is how btrfs performs with two partitions on a single SSD drive in a RAID-1 mirror. This is on a Dell E4200 with Core 2 Duo U9300 (1.2GHz), 2GB RAM and a Samsung SSD (128GB Thin uSATA SSD). Version 1.03c ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random- -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block--

Preparing to build a small replacement server (initially built in 2005) and normally for the OS I would buy 2x500GB drives and deploy in a RAID 1 configuration. Now we have SSD drives available - does just a single SSD drive offer the same reliability or is there advantage in deploying two in a Raid 1 config? Also, what form factor / interface is best for the SSD OS boot device on a server

Anyone have any clues about how to sanitize a dead SSD? We haven't had it yet, but we're sure it's coming. Esp. since I'm a federal contractor, a dead disk gets deGaussed, but what the hell do you do with a SSD?

Maybe "rear" is an appropriate solution for you? https://relax-and-recover.org/ On 17/11/2020 18:23, Chris Schanzle via CentOS wrote: > I would include LVM and mdadm info as well, since I use those features.? I encourage you to look at what long-lived tools, such as clonezilla, write into their archive directories.? It's impressive. > > If you zero out all free space on

I thought I'd test replacing a failed drive in a 4 drive raid 10 array on a CentOS 5.2 box before it goes online and before a drive really fails. I 'mdadm failed, removed', powered off, replaced drive, partitioned with sfdisk -d /dev/sda | sfdisk /dev/sdb, and finally 'mdadm add'ed'. Everything seems fine until I try to create a snapshot lv. (Creating a snapshot lv

I grabbed a new SSD M4-CT064M4SSD2 from Crucial. I am disappointed. I stuck the unit in an Atom machine (zotac) with CentOS 6 on the disk. It really doesn't "feel" faster than the previous 5400 RPM drive that was in it. The SSD is giving me (in the zotac running centos 6): hdparm -t /dev/sda /dev/sda: Timing buffered disk reads: 298 MB in 3.00 seconds = 99.30 MB/sec The

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I''ve been unable to find anything definitive about what happens if I use RAID0 to join an SSD and HDD together with respect to performance (latency, throughput). The future is obvious (hot data tracking, using most appropriate device for the data, data migration). In my specific case I have a 250GB SSD and a 500GB HDD, and about 250GB of