Search Results

Search found 2226 results on 90 pages for 'promise raid'.

Page 29/90 | < Previous Page | 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36  | Next Page >

  • How do I align my partition table properly?

    - by Jorge Castro
    I am in the process of building my first RAID5 array. I've used mdadm to create the following set up: root@bondigas:~# mdadm --detail /dev/md1 /dev/md1: Version : 00.90 Creation Time : Wed Oct 20 20:00:41 2010 Raid Level : raid5 Array Size : 5860543488 (5589.05 GiB 6001.20 GB) Used Dev Size : 1953514496 (1863.02 GiB 2000.40 GB) Raid Devices : 4 Total Devices : 4 Preferred Minor : 1 Persistence : Superblock is persistent Update Time : Wed Oct 20 20:13:48 2010 State : clean, degraded, recovering Active Devices : 3 Working Devices : 4 Failed Devices : 0 Spare Devices : 1 Layout : left-symmetric Chunk Size : 64K Rebuild Status : 1% complete UUID : f6dc829e:aa29b476:edd1ef19:85032322 (local to host bondigas) Events : 0.12 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State 0 8 16 0 active sync /dev/sdb 1 8 32 1 active sync /dev/sdc 2 8 48 2 active sync /dev/sdd 4 8 64 3 spare rebuilding /dev/sde While that's going I decided to format the beast with the following command: root@bondigas:~# mkfs.ext4 /dev/md1p1 mke2fs 1.41.11 (14-Mar-2010) /dev/md1p1 alignment is offset by 63488 bytes. This may result in very poor performance, (re)-partitioning suggested. Filesystem label= OS type: Linux Block size=4096 (log=2) Fragment size=4096 (log=2) Stride=16 blocks, Stripe width=48 blocks 97853440 inodes, 391394047 blocks 19569702 blocks (5.00%) reserved for the super user First data block=0 Maximum filesystem blocks=0 11945 block groups 32768 blocks per group, 32768 fragments per group 8192 inodes per group Superblock backups stored on blocks: 32768, 98304, 163840, 229376, 294912, 819200, 884736, 1605632, 2654208, 4096000, 7962624, 11239424, 20480000, 23887872, 71663616, 78675968, 102400000, 214990848 Writing inode tables: ^C 27/11945 root@bondigas:~# ^C I am unsure what to do about "/dev/md1p1 alignment is offset by 63488 bytes." and how to properly partition the disks to match so I can format it properly.

    Read the article

  • mdadm starts resync on every boot

    - by Anteru
    Since a few days (and I'm positive it started shortly before I updated my server from 13.04-13.10) my mdadm is resyncing on every boot. In the syslog, I get the following output [ 0.809256] md: linear personality registered for level -1 [ 0.811412] md: multipath personality registered for level -4 [ 0.813153] md: raid0 personality registered for level 0 [ 0.815201] md: raid1 personality registered for level 1 [ 1.101517] md: raid6 personality registered for level 6 [ 1.101520] md: raid5 personality registered for level 5 [ 1.101522] md: raid4 personality registered for level 4 [ 1.106825] md: raid10 personality registered for level 10 [ 1.935882] md: bind<sdc1> [ 1.943367] md: bind<sdb1> [ 1.945199] md/raid1:md0: not clean -- starting background reconstruction [ 1.945204] md/raid1:md0: active with 2 out of 2 mirrors [ 1.945225] md0: detected capacity change from 0 to 2000396680192 [ 1.945351] md: resync of RAID array md0 [ 1.945357] md: minimum _guaranteed_ speed: 1000 KB/sec/disk. [ 1.945359] md: using maximum available idle IO bandwidth (but not more than 200000 KB/sec) for resync. [ 1.945362] md: using 128k window, over a total of 1953512383k. [ 2.220468] md0: unknown partition table I'm not sure what's up with that detected capacity change, looking at some old logs, this does have appeared earlier as well without a resync right afterwards. In fact, I let it run yesterday until completion and rebooted, and then it wouldn't resync, but today it does resync again. For instance, yesterday I got: [ 1.872123] md: bind<sdc1> [ 1.950946] md: bind<sdb1> [ 1.952782] md/raid1:md0: active with 2 out of 2 mirrors [ 1.952807] md0: detected capacity change from 0 to 2000396680192 [ 1.954598] md0: unknown partition table So it seems to be a problem that the RAID array does not get marked as clean after every shutdown? How can I troubleshoot this? The disks themselves are both fine, SMART tells me no errors, everything ok.

    Read the article

  • Setting up Cluster Configuration using an existing web server as a Primary Node?

    - by RapidWebs
    Thanks in advance for any help which is issued! I am having a slight issue, and need help with the decision making process when it comes to setting up my Cluster Configuration, consisting on a line of Ubuntu Servers (12.04). We currently have a Primary node, which resides in the US within a Datacenter, but we are going to be using this for all serious bandwidth and resource intensive websites, and through a configuration of Virtualmin + Webmin, will be setup as a sort of pseudo-cluster, using Virtualmins Cluster Modules. Anyways, on to the issue: We also have a business line setup locally, with three servers. here are their specs: Intel P4 2.4 ghz, 1GB Ram, 110 gb sata, Ubuntu 12.04* AMD 1.3 ghz, 512MB Ram, 20 GB IDE P3 Xeon 800mhz (dual physical processors), 1GB Ram, 3 * 25 GB Raid Configuration (one in use for host operating system). The first machine is currently IN USE and is serving virtual hosts off a sub-domain. My question is this: How can I integrate the Secondary node (which will be the Primary node per say, in this smaller configuration...) which is currently in use, into the cluster configuration w/ the other two servers for: Sharing Resources Redundancy (HA?) NFS /w the two Raid Disks without having the FORMAT the secondary node, and start fresh moving all my services in to a DRBD network drive or something similar, and than restoring all active virtualmin's Virtual hosts. the idea is that I want minimal downtime to people currently being served from server2.mywebsite.com, and from what I understand, all services need to be on a NFS so that they can be mounted on demand and accessed from the other machine taking over (i.e. Heartbeat + DRBD Config.) but my issue is that i already have all these services installed to their default directory structure: how can i most easily setup this NFS and HA system, move all my desires services to this new drive, and do it with minimal down time, and without breaking Virtualmin and everything else on my server? even just some pointers, a thread i could read, or a step by step check list or run down of commands i could issue to get started would be great! thanks!

    Read the article

  • Virtual Disk Degraded

    - by TheD
    There is a physical DC with a Raid 1 Mirror, 2 Physical Disks, 500GB each. Dell Server Administrator is installed on the DC, and is reporting both physical disks are fine, online, in a good state etc. On a PERC S300 Raid Controller: Physical Disk 0:0 Physical Disk 0:1 However at the same time it's reporting that a virtual disk is degraded, what exactly does this mean? The virtual disk indicates it's State is in a Raid 1 Layout. Device Name: Windows Disk 0 If my understanding is correct then the Virtual Disk, when you drill down into Dell OpenManage should have both physical disks as members, as it is a mirror? Is this correct? However, when I drill down into the Virtual Disk, it only displays Physical Disk 0:0 included in Virtual Disk 1. I'm very new to server side/raid management etc. just while our server techy is away! Thanks!

    Read the article

  • low-cost RAID NAS for home use?

    - by gravyface
    Have a noisy, power-hungry Pentium 4 based Ubuntu server that I want to replace with a nice, low-power mini-ITX/Intel Atom-based machine to do my network services (DHCP, DNS, IPSec, Web/mail, FTP, etc.) and am thinking of a (hopefully) equally-low powered NAS using NFS over GbE with at least 1 TB space and a RAID 5 (preferred) or RAID 0 (likely) configuration for redundancy with a couple of spare disks I can swap in as needed down the road. Would I be better off getting a full sized ATX mobo/case and configuring the RAID internally? I really want to keep power consumption down as much as possible as I leave my home server up 24/7.

    Read the article

  • low-cost RAID NAS for home use?

    - by gravyface
    Have a noisy, power-hungry Pentium 4 based Ubuntu server that I want to replace with a nice, low-power mini-ITX/Intel Atom-based machine to do my network services (DHCP, DNS, IPSec, Web/mail, FTP, etc.) and am thinking of a (hopefully) equally-low powered NAS using NFS over GbE with at least 1 TB space and a RAID 5 (preferred) or RAID 0 (likely) configuration for redundancy with a couple of spare disks I can swap in as needed down the road. Would I be better off getting a full sized ATX mobo/case and configuring the RAID internally? I really want to keep power consumption down as much as possible as I leave my home server up 24/7.

    Read the article

  • What benchmark tool to use to benchmark hardware for VM server?

    - by Mark0978
    We are setting up a new piece of hardware to virtualize several of our servers on. Choices are RAID 5, RAID 6, and RAID 0+1. We are wanting to benchmark all three before we go live with the machine, but I'm not sure how to test the speed. Since we will be using it to host VMs, what will the actual disk traffic look like? What can I use to see if RAID 6 is too slow? Short of setting up the system with all the VM's on it and running that way, then redoing on all the work, I'm not sure how to test it. It them becomes more of a subjective test than an objective one. I'm worried that RAID6 will have too much overhead, that RAID5 will be to fragile with 3TB drives and I've never worked with 0+1 at all. So in short I'd like to setup the base machine (which will be running Linux) and then test the underlying SW RAID for speed. What kind of tool exists to simulate this kind of load? Barring the lack of a specific tool, how about a generic FS testing tool that will simulate different loads?

    Read the article

  • Missing over 100GB of Space on sda1 RHEL

    - by WifiGhost
    I have a server setup with a RAID 5 using (3) 500GB drives, 1 as a spare so unused in the RAID. So in my mind i start out with 990GB with the RAID 5 in place. When looking at DF or the built in disk space utility i only see a total of about 882GB, how can i find where the 100+GB went? How can i get it back? I've checked the RAID 5 BIOS and i see all the space. I've tried looking manually and through terminal commands with no luck. Filesystem - 1K-blocks - Used Available - Use% - Mounted on /dev/mapper/vg_web-lv_root 838084192 48368700 747153060 7% / tmpfs 12104644 592 12104052 1% /dev/shm /dev/sda1 495844 121546 348698 26% /boot /dev/mapper/vg_web-lv_home 82569904 259136 78116468 1% /home Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/mapper/vg_web-lv_root 800G 47G 713G 7% / tmpfs 12G 592K 12G 1% /dev/shm /dev/sda1 485M 119M 341M 26% /boot /dev/mapper/vg_web-lv_home 79G 254M 75G 1% /home

    Read the article

  • Drive configuration for 5 large databases

    - by Mr. Flibble
    I've got 5 databases, each 300GB, currently on a RAID 5 array consisting of 5 drives. All the databases are used heavily, at the same time, so drive speed is an issue. Would I see better performance if I got rid of the RAID 5 configuration and just put each database on a separate drive? The redundancy provided by RAID 5 is not necessary due to mirroring elsewhere. Will the server then be able to perform reads / writes to different databases drives in parallel? More so at least than when it's in RAID? This is all on Windows 2003 / SQL 2008.

    Read the article

  • Are mobo raid controllers based on Intel ICH10R southbridge still considered software Raid?

    - by Breadtruck
    So do you still need specific software/drivers (intel matrix?) installed to manage the raid controller, setup the array. If the raid chipset is on-board the motherboard and it uses the CPU, and say I am using a Core 2 Quad Q9550, would a hardware based card still out perform the motherboard chipset? This is for a home workstation and I could spend $300 on a areca ARC-1210 PCI-Express x8 SATA II but I want to be able to justify the money for the raid card. My motherboard is a GIGABYTE GA-EP45-UD3P UPDATE: I was going to RAID5 using 4 500 GB drives, and I was going to buy a controller card but this article got me thinking hmmm....Toms-Southbridge Battle

    Read the article

  • Very slow disk performance on Dell PowerEdge 2950 w/ PERC 6/i running RAID 10

    - by vocoder
    I recently set up a server running Ubuntu 10.04 LTS on a Dell PowerEdge 2950 server - it has 6 500 gb 7200RPM SATA drives setup in a RAID 10 config. I am seeing extremely poor disk performance - the RAID array reports all disks are normal and using MegaCLI, it looks like the BBU is fine. hdparm -tT /dev/sda reports: Timing cached reads: 90 MB in 2.05 seconds = 43.96 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 24 MB in 3.11 seconds = 7.72 MB/sec So as you can see, it takes forever to something as simple as an apt-get upgrade and even logging into the server. How do I go about troubleshooting what is causing this? I upgraded the firmware on the PERC 6i RAID controller to the latest, but didn't see any improvements.

    Read the article

  • AHCI and Memtest86+

    - by satanicpuppy
    I've got a motherboard with SATA AHCI enabled, and I need to disable it to run Memtest86+ (because Window's built-in RAM diagnostic tool isn't worth a barrel of warm snot), and because the Memtest developers are too lazy to fix the bootloader problem. Fine, I know how to do that. The problem is, I, in a moment of insanity driven by the fact that I work with hardware RAID cards all the time, felt the need to enable the onboard RAID. In retrospect, this was stupid: the onboard raid is a joke, but I'm stuck with it. My question is, if I disable AHCI am I going to lose the RAID information? I haven't been able to find a definitive yes or no anywhere, and I'm not in the mood to find out the hard way.

    Read the article

  • RAID 10: SPAN 2 vs SPAN 4

    - by LaDante Riley
    I am currently configuring RAID 10 (first time doing RAID ever) for a server at work. In the Configuration Utility. I am given the option of either span 2 or span 4. Having never done this before, I was curious if someone could tell me the pros and cons of for each span? Thanks The server is a Poweredge r620 with a PERC H710 mini (Security Capable) RAID controller. I have 8 600GB hard drives. I am creating this server as a network storage drive. I have SQL server historian database whose 1TB storage filled up and after 5 years of logging data.

    Read the article

  • How to make a Linux software RAID1 detect disc corruption?

    - by Paul
    This is one of the nightmare days: A virtualized server running on a Linux SW-RAID1 runs a VM that exhibits random segfaults in seemingly random codechunks. While debugging I find that a file gives different md5sums on each and every run. Digging deeper I find this: The raw disc partitions that make up the RAID1 mirror contain 2 bit-differences and ca. 9 sectors are completely empty on one disc and filled with data on the other disc. Obviously Linux gives back a sector from a undeterministically chosen disc of the mirror set. So sometimes the same sector is returned OK, sometimes the corrupted is given back. The docs say: RAID cannot and is not supposed to guard against data corruption on the media. Therefore, it doesn't make any sense either, to purposely corrupt data (using dd for example) on a disk to see how the RAID system will handle that. It is most likely (unless you corrupt the RAID superblock) that the RAID layer will never find out about the corruption, but your filesystem on the RAID device will be corrupted. Thanks. That will help me sleep. :-/ Is there a way to have Linux at least detect this corruption by using sector checksumming or something like that? Would this be detected in a RAID5 setup? Is this the moment I wish I used ZFS or btrfs (once it becomes usable without uber-admin capabilities)?

    Read the article

  • Slow Write Speed on ESXi host

    - by Gregg Leventhal
    I have an ESXi 5.0 free host with an internal datastore of 7.2K 5 disk RAID 5 using a PERC 710 mini RAID controller in a Dell Poweredge R620 Server with 32GB Ram and a 12 Core Xeon. I seem to get slow write speeds in the guests so I checked out ESXTOP and I see 15MB/s write speed there on this host, which is comprable to the guests. What could be causing such horrible write speeds? Is RAID 5 really this slow to write??

    Read the article

  • HP DL185 - very slow disk read speed

    - by fistameeny
    Hi, I have a HP DL185 G6 Server (12 disk model) with the following spec: Quad Core Xeon 2.27GHz 6GB RAM HP P212 RAID controller with battery backup 2 x 128GB 15K SAS 3.5" (RAID-1 for the operating system) 4 x 750GB 7.5K SAS 3.5" (RAID-5 for the data, 2TB usable space) The operating system is Ubuntu Server 9.10. Both drives have been formatted as EXT4. We are finding that read speed of the RAID-5 array is poor. Disk test results below: sudo hdparm -tT /dev/cciss/c0d1p1 /dev/cciss/c0d1p1: Timing cached reads: 15284 MB in 2.00 seconds = 7650.18 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 74 MB in 3.02 seconds = 24.53 MB/sec For info, the RAID-1 array performs as follows: sudo hdparm -tT /dev/cciss/c0d0p1 /dev/cciss/c0d0p1: Timing cached reads: 15652 MB in 2.00 seconds = 7834.26 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 492 MB in 3.01 seconds = 163.46 MB/sec We thought this was because with no battery, read/write cache is disabled. We have bought and installed the battery backup and have used the HP bootable CD to change the cache settings to 50% read / 50% write and check cache is enabled on the drives and the controller. Is there something I'm missing?

    Read the article

  • Possible to write an implement of RAIDZ or RAIDZ2 for the MD driver in the Linux kernel?

    - by Pharaun
    I am curious on if it is possible to have an implement of RAIDZ and/or RAIDZ2 in the MD driver in the Linux kernel? From my understanding of it is that the RAIDZ version is equivalent to a RAID 5, and that a RAIDZ2 is equivalent to a RAID 6. The main difference is that the stripe size can be variable for RAIDZ as opposite to RAID 5/6 from my understanding, which helps performance. So what I am wondering is would it be possible to add this performance enhancing technique to RAID 5 & 6 in the MD driver in the kernel? Or is it tied too closely to how the ZFS works?

    Read the article

  • Intel Rapid Storage Technology - Raid5 is very slow

    - by Cederstrom
    Hi, I build a computer with a raid5, using the motherboards raid controller (ASUS P7H57D-V EVO - intel Rapid Storage Technology). The read and write are however very slow, when using the raid controller :( - I am using Windows 2008 R2, and when using the windows software raid, it was ok in speed - so there must be an issue with the controller? Im using 6 disks on 2TB each. Do anyone have any idea why its so slow, and how to fix it? I rather not pick the easy solutiuon of "just buy a raid controller" :| If you need more info about my setup, please just ask. Thanks :)

    Read the article

  • setup lowcost image storage server with 24x SSD array to get high IOPS?

    - by Nenad
    I want to build let's name it a lowcost Ra*san which would host for our social site the images (many millions) we have 5 sizes of every photo with 3 KB, 7 KB, 15 KB, 25 KB and 80 KB per Image. My idea is to build a Server with 24x consumer 240 GB SSD's in Raid 6 which will give me some 5 TB Disk space for the photo storage. To have HA I can add a 2nd one and use drdb. I'm looking to get above 150'000 IOPS (4K Random reads). As we mostly have read access only and rarely delete photos i think to go with consumer MLC SSD. I read many endurance reviews and don't see there a problem as long we don't rewrite the cells. What you think about my idea? - I'm not sure between Raid 6 or Raid 10 (more IOPS, cost SSD). - Is ext4 OK for the filesystem - Would you use 1 or 2 Raid controller, with Extender Backplane If anyone has realized something similar i would be happy to get Real World numbers. UPDATE I have buy 12 (plus some spare) OCZ Talos 480GB SAS SSD Drive's they will be placed in a 12-bay DAS and attached to a PERC H800 (1GB NV Cache, manufactured by LSI with fastpath) Controller, I plan to setup Raid 50 with ext4. If someone is wondering about some benchmarks let me know what you would like to see.

    Read the article

  • How can one associate a 3ware controller with the corresponding /dev/tw?? device?

    - by barbaz
    I have a few 3ware RAID controllers installed in a system. Is there any way to figure out the mapping between the following identifiers, each describing in a way the very same RAID controller? The tw_cli reported controller id (e.g. c0,c1,c2,...) The corresponding device nodes that allow smartctl access via the 3ware driver (e.g. /dev/twa0, /dev/twa1, /dev/twl0) The block device presented to the system representing a RAID unit (/dev/sda, /dev/sdb,...)

    Read the article

  • Which is a better use of my SSD Drive [on hold]

    - by RS Conley
    I have the choice of setting up a system with two SSD Drives in Raid 1 mode as my boot drive for Windows 7 64-bit. With the Program Files and User Folders moved to a Second regular HD Drive also configured using Raid 1. Or Setup a single SSD Drive (120 GB or 256 gb) as a cache Drive using Intel Rapid Storage Technology combined with two normal hard drives configured as Raid 1. Which setup would have the faster hard drive performance over the life of the computer?

    Read the article

  • Recover data from Dynamic Disk (MBR) bigger than 2TB

    - by Helder
    Here is the situation: Promise Array FastTrak TX4310 with 3 disks (750 GB each) in RAID5. This comes to around 1500 GB of data. Last week I had the idea of expanding the RAID with an additional 750 GB disk. This would bring the volume to around 2250 GB. I plugged the disk and used the Webpam software to do the RAID expansion. However, I didn't count with the MBR 2TB limit, as I didn't remembered that the disk was using MBR instead of GPT and I didn't check it prior to the expansion. After a couple of days of expansion, today when I got home, the disk in Windows disk manager showed the message "Invalid disk" and when I try to activate it, it says "The operation is not allowed on the Invalid pack". From what I figured, the logical volume on the RAID expanded, and passed that info to the Windows layer and I ended up with an "larger than 2TB" MBR disk. I'm hopping that somehow I can still recover some data from this, and I was wondering if I can "rewrite" the MBR structure back to the 1500 GB partition size, so I can access the partition in Windows. Right now I'm doing an "Analyse" with TestDisk, as I hope the program will pickup the old 1500 structure and allow me to somehow revert back to it. I think that even though the Logical Drive in the RAID is bigger than the 2TB, I can somehow correct the MBR to show the 1500 GB partition again. I had a similar problem once, and I was able to recover the data using a similar method. What do you guys think? Is it a dead end? Am I totally screwed because there is the extra RAID layer that I'm not counting? Or is there other way to move with this? Thanks all!

    Read the article

  • Post raid5 setup reboot shows single hard drive failure on ubuntu 12.10?

    - by junkie
    I just set up raid 5 on linux using three HDDs as per a guide. It all went fine until when I rebooted I got the following text: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Zsfjk.jpg. Does this mean one of my HDDs has failed? How do I check if any of them are failing? I tried using smartctl and didn't see any issues. Or is it nothing to do with failure and something else altogether? I would like to get the raid 5 working again but I'm not sure where to go from here. I'm using ubuntu 12.10 and the three raid disks each have a gpt partition with a single full size partition of filesystem type ext4. Note I only got an error on reboot not while I was creating the raid array which went fine. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Server with 3 Disk, what's the best HD Configuration?

    - by aleroot
    I Have an HP Server with a quad core Opteron and 3 Disk 250Gb S-ATA Disk, i'm thinking about what's the best configuration of the disk for performance and reliability. There is mainly 2 scenario : -RAID 5 with these 3 HD (on the the array 100GB Partition for OS, Other Space for Data Partition) -RAID 1 + 1 Disk for OS (one single Disk OS Installation, RAID 1 Array for a Data Partition) What's the best configuration ? In the Server Run MySQL and Small Document File server, the OS to be installed is Windows Server 2008 ...

    Read the article

  • large RAID 10 vs small RAID1

    - by user116399
    The machine will store and serve millions of small files (<15Kb each), and all those files require a total storage space of 400G Considering the exact same SATA hard drives maker and models, on the exact same environment (OS, cpu, ram, raid controller, etc...) which one of the setups bellow would be faster? A) RAID 1 with 2 drives of 2T each, making up total storage of 2T B) RAID 10 with 4 drives of 2T each, making up total storage of 4T [EDIT]: I'm aware RAID10 is faster than RAID1. The larger the disk, at least in theory, the longer will take to do seeks/writes. So, will the performance gain of RAID10 will be outweighed by the "drag" caused the larger disk area when seek/write operations happened?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36  | Next Page >