Search Results

Search found 1864 results on 75 pages for 'raid'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 23/75 | < Previous Page | 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30  | Next Page >

  • what kind of RAID should I choose when planning to host a vedio stream application? [duplicate]

    - by facebook-100005613813158
    This question already has an answer here: What are the different widely used RAID levels and when should I consider them? 2 answers Which RAID level should you recommend for a company that plans to hosts a video streaming application?we get 4 candidate ,RAID1 , RAID3,RAID5 AND RAID6. Which one is the best? In my opinion ,a video streaming application doesn't have a very strict demand for data correctness, so , just RAID1 is ok?But on the other hand , RAID1 seems very capacty-consuming?

    Read the article

  • Can the Intel C600-series SAS controller RAID SATA drives?

    - by CyberShadow
    (Sorry if this is off-topic - technically this is a home workstation setting, but is regarding mostly-server technology.) I have a GA-X79S-UP5-WIFI motherboard and four ST3000DM001 drives, and the IRST manager isn't letting me put the drives in a RAID (it lists them, but the option to select the C600-series controller is simply grayed out). Have I done a mistake? Do I need SAS drives to RAID them on the SAS controller?

    Read the article

  • Possible to (re)sync 2 drives into RAID 1 Array?

    - by MsLis
    Have an XP machine with 2 drives configured in a RAID 1 array. Trying to fix a boot problem, I took the drives out to run chkdsk on them, and I accidentally got them out-of-sync (event logs, etc). Is there any way to duplicate the contents of one drive onto the other to restore their RAID-ness, or have I really messed myself up?

    Read the article

  • Are there any USB flash drives or SD cards which use RAID or redundant storage for additional reliability?

    - by Luke Dennis
    I'm looking to get a fault-tolerant USB flash drive, which saves data to multiple independent locations, whether using RAID or some other means to back up data. Has a product like this ever been created, or are my only options to hack something together? (By the way: I'm aware that RAID doesn't prevent data corruption from software or the file system. I'm just looking for something that can handle one of the memory sticks going dead.)

    Read the article

  • Is TRIM supported on RAID 0 configurations for SSD drives in windows 7?

    - by John Sonmez
    I know this question has probably been asked at some point in the past, but I am trying to figure out if Windows 7 supports passing TRIM commands through RAID controllers yet. I am trying to decide between buying a single SSD drive and utilizing TRIM or Buying two SSD drives and putting them in RAID 0 configuration What is the fastest current configuration I can set up? I want my development machine to be BLAZING fast.

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to continue a RAID 5 resync if it was interrupted?

    - by rubo77
    If you replaced a broken Harddisk in a RAID 5 the raid must be resynced, which can last lots of hours, if it has some TeraBytes. If this resync is interrupted by powerloss, can the server be rebooted and the resync be started over again? (I am using Ubuntu 12.04 on my server in my livingroom and it shut down into hibernate mode, cause I accidently hit the powerbutton while the resync was still running)

    Read the article

  • Do 7.2k SATA drives and a hardware raid controller always end with trouble?

    - by xelco52
    I'm reading the FreeNAS userguide and came across the statement: Note that hardware RAID configured as JBOD may still detach disks that do not respond in time; and as such may require TLER/CCTL/ERC-enabled disks to prevent drive dropouts. I'm using a '3Ware 9550SX-8LP RAID Controller' and see quite a few stories of people successfully running raid5 on 7.2k consumer SATA drives without issue. Are detached disks only a theoretical problem, or should I expect this to be a common occurrence?

    Read the article

  • Accessing a broken mdadm raid

    - by CarstenCarsten
    Hi! I used a western digital mybookworld (SOHO NAS storage using Linux) as backup for my Linux box. Suddenly, the mybookworld does not boot up any more. So I opened the box, removed the hard disk and put the hard disk into an external USB HDD case, and connected it to my Linux box. [ 530.640301] usb 2-1: new high speed USB device using ehci_hcd and address 3 [ 530.797630] scsi7 : usb-storage 2-1:1.0 [ 531.794844] scsi 7:0:0:0: Direct-Access WDC WD75 00AAKS-00RBA0 PQ: 0 ANSI: 2 [ 531.796490] sd 7:0:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg3 type 0 [ 531.797966] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdc] 1465149168 512-byte logical blocks: (750 GB/698 GiB) [ 531.800317] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdc] Write Protect is off [ 531.800327] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdc] Mode Sense: 38 00 00 00 [ 531.800333] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdc] Assuming drive cache: write through [ 531.803821] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdc] Assuming drive cache: write through [ 531.803836] sdc: sdc1 sdc2 sdc3 sdc4 [ 531.815831] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdc] Assuming drive cache: write through [ 531.815842] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdc] Attached SCSI disk The dmesg output looks normal, but I was wondering why the hardisk was not mounted at all. And why there are 4 different partitions on it. fdisk showed the following: root@ubuntu:/home/ubuntu# fdisk /dev/sdc WARNING: DOS-compatible mode is deprecated. It's strongly recommended to switch off the mode (command 'c') and change display units to sectors (command 'u'). Command (m for help): p Disk /dev/sdc: 750.2 GB, 750156374016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 91201 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x00007c00 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdc1 4 369 2939895 fd Linux raid autodetect /dev/sdc2 370 382 104422+ fd Linux raid autodetect /dev/sdc3 383 505 987997+ fd Linux raid autodetect /dev/sdc4 506 91201 728515620 fd Linux raid autodetect Oh no! Everything seems to be created as a mdadm software raid. Calling mdadm --examine with the different partitions seems to affirm that. I think the only partition I am interested in, is /dev/sdc4 (because it is the largest). But nevertheless I called mdadm --examine with every partition. root@ubuntu:/home/ubuntu# mdadm --examine /dev/sdc1 /dev/sdc1: Magic : a92b4efc Version : 00.90.00 UUID : 5626a2d8:070ad992:ef1c8d24:cd8e13e4 Creation Time : Wed Feb 20 00:57:49 2002 Raid Level : raid1 Used Dev Size : 2939776 (2.80 GiB 3.01 GB) Array Size : 2939776 (2.80 GiB 3.01 GB) Raid Devices : 2 Total Devices : 1 Preferred Minor : 1 Update Time : Sun Nov 21 11:05:27 2010 State : clean Active Devices : 1 Working Devices : 1 Failed Devices : 1 Spare Devices : 0 Checksum : 4c90bc55 - correct Events : 16682 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State this 0 8 1 0 active sync /dev/sda1 0 0 8 1 0 active sync /dev/sda1 1 1 0 0 1 faulty removed root@ubuntu:/home/ubuntu# mdadm --examine /dev/sdc2 /dev/sdc2: Magic : a92b4efc Version : 00.90.00 UUID : 9734b3ee:2d5af206:05fe3413:585f7f26 Creation Time : Wed Feb 20 00:57:54 2002 Raid Level : raid1 Used Dev Size : 104320 (101.89 MiB 106.82 MB) Array Size : 104320 (101.89 MiB 106.82 MB) Raid Devices : 2 Total Devices : 1 Preferred Minor : 2 Update Time : Wed Oct 27 20:19:08 2010 State : clean Active Devices : 1 Working Devices : 1 Failed Devices : 1 Spare Devices : 0 Checksum : 55560b40 - correct Events : 9884 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State this 0 8 2 0 active sync /dev/sda2 0 0 8 2 0 active sync /dev/sda2 1 1 0 0 1 faulty removed root@ubuntu:/home/ubuntu# mdadm --examine /dev/sdc3 /dev/sdc3: Magic : a92b4efc Version : 00.90.00 UUID : 08f30b4f:91cca15d:2332bfef:48e67824 Creation Time : Wed Feb 20 00:57:54 2002 Raid Level : raid1 Used Dev Size : 987904 (964.91 MiB 1011.61 MB) Array Size : 987904 (964.91 MiB 1011.61 MB) Raid Devices : 2 Total Devices : 1 Preferred Minor : 3 Update Time : Sun Nov 21 11:05:27 2010 State : clean Active Devices : 1 Working Devices : 1 Failed Devices : 1 Spare Devices : 0 Checksum : 39717874 - correct Events : 73678 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State this 0 8 3 0 active sync 0 0 8 3 0 active sync 1 1 0 0 1 faulty removed root@ubuntu:/home/ubuntu# mdadm --examine /dev/sdc4 /dev/sdc4: Magic : a92b4efc Version : 00.90.00 UUID : febb75ca:e9d1ce18:f14cc006:f759419a Creation Time : Wed Feb 20 00:57:55 2002 Raid Level : raid1 Used Dev Size : 728515520 (694.77 GiB 746.00 GB) Array Size : 728515520 (694.77 GiB 746.00 GB) Raid Devices : 2 Total Devices : 1 Preferred Minor : 4 Update Time : Sun Nov 21 11:05:27 2010 State : clean Active Devices : 1 Working Devices : 1 Failed Devices : 1 Spare Devices : 0 Checksum : 2f36a392 - correct Events : 519320 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State this 0 8 4 0 active sync 0 0 8 4 0 active sync 1 1 0 0 1 faulty removed If I read the output correctly everything was removed, because it was faulty. Is there ANY way to see the contents of the largest partition? Or seeing somehow which files are broken? I see that everything is raid1 which is only mirroring, so this should be a normal partition. I am anxious to do anything with mdadm, in fear that I destroy the data on the hard disk. I would be very thankful for any help.

    Read the article

  • Restoring an Ubuntu Server using ZFS RAID-Z for data

    - by andybjackson
    Having become disillusioned with hacking Buffalo NAS devices, I've decided to roll my own Home server. After some research, I have settled on an HP Proliant Microserver with Ubuntu Server and ZFS (OS on 1 Ext4 disk, Data on 3 RAID-Z disks). As Joel Spolsky and Geoff Atwood say with regards to backup, I can't rest until I have done a restore in all of the failure scenarios that I am seeking to protect against. Q: How to configure Ubuntu Server to recognise a pre-existing RAID-Z array? Clearly if one of the data disks die - then that is a resilvering scenario, which is well documented. If two of the data disks die, then I am into regular backup/restore land. If the OS dies and I can restore, also an easy scenario. But if the OS dies and I can't restore, then I need to recreate an Ubuntu server. But how do I get this to recognise my RAID-Z array? Is the necessary configuration information stored within and across the RAID-Z array and simply need to be found (if so, how)? Or does it reside on the OS ext4 disk (in which case how do I recreate it)?

    Read the article

  • Raid-z unaccessible after putting one disk offline

    - by varesa
    I have installed FreeNAS on a test server, with 3x 1Tb drives. They are setup in raidz. I tried to offline one of the disks (from the FreeNAS web-ui), and the array became degraded, as I think it should. The problem is with the array becoming unaccessible after that. I thought a raid like that should be able to run fine with one of the disks missing. Atleast very soon after I offline'd and pulled out the disk, the iSCSI share disappeared from a ESXi host's datastores. I also ssh'd into the FreeNAS server, and tried just executing ls /mnt/raid (/mnt/raid/ being the mount point). The whole terminal froze, not accepting ^C or anything. # zpool status -v pool: raid state: DEGRADED status: One or more devices are faulted in response to IO failures. action: Make sure the affected devices are connected, then run 'zpool clear'. see: http://www.sun.com/msg/ZFS-8000-HC scrub: none requested config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM raid DEGRADED 1 30 0 raidz1 DEGRADED 4 56 0 gptid/c8c9e44c-08e1-11e2-9ba6-001b212a83ea ONLINE 3 60 0 gptid/c96f32d5-08e1-11e2-9ba6-001b212a83ea ONLINE 3 63 0 gptid/ca208205-08e1-11e2-9ba6-001b212a83ea OFFLINE 0 0 0 errors: Permanent errors have been detected in the following files: /mnt/raid/ raid/iscsivol:<0x0> raid/iscsivol:<0x1> Have I understood the workings of a raidz wrong, or is there something else going on? It would not be nice to have the same thing happen on a production system...

    Read the article

  • file system that allow to specify different RAID level per directory and change it afterward

    - by Adam Ryczkowski
    I have 5 hard drives, where I want to keep my data. Some of my files are more important, and some of them are less. So some of them I wish to put on RAID-6, and for some it RAID-5 is sufficient. It is difficult to predict at the moment of creation of the arrays how much space of each type to declare. What I would do if I didn't hear about zfs, is partition the hard drives into identical 100GB partitions, and as my needs grow, assemble those partitions into md devices using linux-raid. Then, I'd combine those devices using lvm into logical volumes where I'd put my data. So when I'd need more space of e.g. RAID-6, I'd take 100GB partition from each hard drive and assemble them into another RAID-6 md device and would use it as physical storage for the logical volume group dedicated for RAID-6 data. Then I could grow the file system on this logical volume. On top of RAID-6 and RAID-5 Volume Groups (managed by lvm) would reside completely independent file systems, which I'd later merge with multiple mount --bind into a single directory structure that would reflect the logical structure of data rather that of the storage. But now, when I heard about the ZFS with all the performance, data-healing and compression capabilities I cannot stop thinking if it can help me. If so, what do you think would be the best setup?

    Read the article

  • When using software RAID and LVM on Linux, which IO scheduler and readahead settings are honored?

    - by andrew311
    In the case of multiple layers (physical drives - md - dm - lvm), how do the schedulers, readahead settings, and other disk settings interact? Imagine you have several disks (/dev/sda - /dev/sdd) all part of a software RAID device (/dev/md0) created with mdadm. Each device (including physical disks and /dev/md0) has its own setting for IO scheduler (changed like so) and readahead (changed using blockdev). When you throw in things like dm (crypto) and LVM you add even more layers with their own settings. For example, if the physical device has a read ahead of 128 blocks and the RAID has a readahead of 64 blocks, which is honored when I do a read from /dev/md0? Does the md driver attempt a 64 block read which the physical device driver then translates to a read of 128 blocks? Or does the RAID readahead "pass-through" to the underlying device, resulting in a 64 block read? The same kind of question holds for schedulers? Do I have to worry about multiple layers of IO schedulers and how they interact, or does the /dev/md0 effectively override underlying schedulers? In my attempts to answer this question, I've dug up some interesting data on schedulers and tools which might help figure this out: Linux Disk Scheduler Benchmarking from Google blktrace - generate traces of the i/o traffic on block devices Relevant Linux kernel mailing list thread

    Read the article

  • New Version: ZFS RAID Calculator v7

    - by uwes
    New version available now. ZFS RAID Calculator v7 on eSTEP portal. The Tool calculates key capacity parameter like  number of Vdev's, number of spares, number of data drives, raw RAID capacity(TB), usable capacity (TiB) and (TB) according the different possible  RAID types for a given ZS3 configuration. Updates included in v7: added an open office version compatible with MacOS included the obsolete drives as options for upgrade calculations simplified the color scheme and tweaked the formulas for better compatibility The spreadsheet can be downloaded from eSTEP portal. URL: http://launch.oracle.com/ PIN: eSTEP_2011 The material can be found under tab eSTEP Download.

    Read the article

  • 12.04 grub unable to boot on /sde, upgrade-grub and boot-repair failed, please help

    - by VGR
    My problem is I've 4 disks in a raid array listed as sda, sdb... sdd and grub 2 refuses to boot on /sde (the 5th disk, standalone and containing a clean install of 12.04 64 bits). I tried all solutions but all fail. (live CD/USB with grub-setup, also tried repair-grub, and tried also in the "grub rescue" set prefix= etc). I also tried to deactivate the RAID array in the BIOS, but I'd rather not destroy it, and I didn't find a way to make the standalone disk as '/sda1' (this would satisfy grub). In the BIOS, the would-be /sda is the only bootable hard disk; it ends up as /sde and grubs complains. I've made repair-grub issue a pastebin. I always end up in grub-rescue and I'm stuck. I need Ubuntu to boot so that I can add the device array handler for my disks. I can't switch the disks and I can't disconnect the SATA RAID controller. I need: (a) a workaround so that grub starts on /sde; or (b) a way to change the order in which Ubuntu sees the disks, at boot time. I could then provide grub with a /sda1. Thanks a lot. up please thanks a lot it's not the same problem as booting ubuntu from raid. My RAID array serves only of data repository windows had no problem with this configuration

    Read the article

  • Hardware Compatibility

    - by thebradnet
    I am looking into buying a LENOVO RD330 SERVER with a ThinkServer RAID 500 Adapter II RAID controller. I am having problems finding out if all of the hardware that I am wanting will be compatible with Ubuntu. I have check the "Certified Hardware" list but the list is very limited. Both the computer and the RAID controller say they support RedHat and Suse but obviously Ubuntu isn't mentioned. I have talked with my vendor and they also not certain if this hardware will work. I have also Google around and the RAID controller appears to be an LSI chipset. But again I haven't been able to find any definitive information saying that this will work. Any suggestions on how I can find out if the hardware will work?

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu 12.04 crashing

    - by James Mullinix
    We have a server with 2x32gb sas raid 1 and 4x1tb raid 10 + 2x1tb hot spares. Whenever we try to copy the 1tb and 1.5e6 files to a backup location (even just using tty1 cp command) it fails. We have tried using backintime and dejadup, and resorted to a manual cp to an external usb2 HDD. When that failed, we tried installing an internal HDD on the mobo (not on raid) and another cp, which also fails. The failures lock up the system and we are left with an unfortunate hard reboot situation. After reboot, syslog tends to be empty (only containing newly booted data) and we haven't a clue where to start. It has been 3 weeks since our last successful backup and we are getting nervous... -using 3ware raid controller, 8gb ram and nvidia pciexpress graphics with a gigabyte mobo and xeon 4-core processor.

    Read the article

  • Why can't Ubuntu find an ext3 filesystem on my hard-drive?

    - by urig
    This question is related to this question: Not enough components to start the RAID array? I'm trying to retrieve data from a "Western Digital MyBook World Edition (white light)" NAS device. This is basically an embedded Linux box with a 1TB HDD in it formatted in ext3. It stopped booting one day for no apparent reason. I have extracted the HDD from the NAS device and installed it in a desktop machine running Ubuntu 10.10 in the hope of accessing the files on the drive. I have followed instructions in this forum post, intended to mount the drive through Terminal: http://mybookworld.wikidot.com/forum/t-90514/how-to-recover-data-from-wd-my-book-world-edition-nas-device#post-976452 I have identified the partition that I want to mount and recover files from as /dev/sd4 by running "fdisk -l" and getting this: Disk /dev/sdb: 1000.2 GB, 1000204886016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 121601 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x0001cf00 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdb1 5 248 1959930 fd Linux raid autodetect /dev/sdb2 249 280 257040 fd Linux raid autodetect /dev/sdb3 281 403 987997+ fd Linux raid autodetect /dev/sdb4 404 121601 973522935 fd Linux raid autodetect// When I try to mount using: "mount -t ext3 /dev/sdb4 /media/xyz" I get the following error: mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/sdb4, missing codepage or helper program, or other error In some cases useful info is found in syslog - try dmesg | tail or so And "dmesg | tail" shows me: [ 15.184757] [drm] Initialized nouveau 0.0.16 20090420 for 0000:01:00.0 on minor 0 [ 15.986859] [drm] nouveau 0000:01:00.0: Allocating FIFO number 1 [ 15.988379] [drm] nouveau 0000:01:00.0: nouveau_channel_alloc: initialised FIFO 1 [ 16.353379] EXT4-fs (sda5): re-mounted. Opts: errors=remount-ro,commit=0 [ 16.705944] tg3 0000:02:00.0: eth0: Link is up at 100 Mbps, full duplex [ 16.705951] tg3 0000:02:00.0: eth0: Flow control is off for TX and off for RX [ 16.706102] ADDRCONF(NETDEV_CHANGE): eth0: link becomes ready [ 19.125673] EXT4-fs (sda5): re-mounted. Opts: errors=remount-ro,commit=0 [ 27.600012] eth0: no IPv6 routers present [ 373.478031] EXT3-fs (sdb4): error: can't find ext3 filesystem on dev sdb4. I guess that last line is the punch line :) Why can't it find the ext3 filesystem on my drive? What do I need to do to mount this partition and copy its contents? Does it have anything to do with the drive being part of a RAID Array (see question mentioned above)? Many thanks to any who can help.

    Read the article

  • Ubutnu 12.04 mdadm inactive

    - by user32274
    For a while now, my RAID 5 has ceased to work. Everytime I tried "madm --detail /dev/md127", its states all the drive and drive info, but that two of the drives have been removed. After some restarts, doing the same thing, i am getting /dev/md127 does not appear to be active. When I go into DiskUtil, I can see all 6 Hard Drives healthy and present, and i can see the Raid 5 at the bottom under Multi-disk Devices. However, the Raid says 0.0kb, and is not active. Please help and let me know how to proceed from here. I would really like to avoid rebuilding the RAID, especially because all 6 drives seem to be healthy and present. Thanks so much.

    Read the article

  • Drives will not show up on PCI RAID card in Ubuntu 12.04 LTS

    - by Mechh69
    Computer specs Intel E8200 Dual Core MSI G45M MB Ultra U12-40739 PCI Expansion Card - 2 SATA Internal Ports, 1.5Gbps, RAID 0, 1, JBOD 6 GB DDR2 Q1. I installed Ubuntu 12.04 LTS and Amahi, for using Grey Hole, last night. The two disc on the raid card do not show up under Ubuntu 12.04LTS but they do show up under grey hole so I know the drives and the raid card are working and there. I need to access them in Ubuntu to format them and place folders on them but I can not see them or figure out how to access them. Q2. Only 4 of the six drives connected to the MB are showing in Ubuntu, but they show as active in grey hole. I also need to access these drives in Ubuntu as this is my storage server. I am new to LINUX so any help you can provide with simple directions will be greatly appreciated . Thank you Mechh69

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30  | Next Page >