Search Results

Search found 303 results on 13 pages for 'raid1'.

Page 3/13 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Create a partition table on a hardware RAID1 drive with [c]fdisk

    - by Lev Levitsky
    My question is, is there a reason for this not to work? Details: I have two 500 Gb drives, and my motherboard RAID support, so I created a RAID1 array and booted from a Linux live medium. I then listed the disks and, apart from the obvious /dev/sda, /dev/sdb, etc. there was /dev/md126 which, I figured, was the mirrored "virtual" drive. Its size was 475 Gb; I had seen that the size of the array would be smaller than 500 Gb when I was creating it, so no surprise there. I did cfdisk /dev/md126, created the necessary partitions and chose write. It's been about half an hour now, I think. It doesn't seem like it's ever going to finish. The only thing about cfdisk in dmesg is that it's "blocked for more than 120 seconds". Doing fdisk -l /dev/md126 in another terminal I see all three partitions I created and a note that "Partition 1 does not start on a physical sector boundary". The table is lost after reboot, though. I tried to partition /dev/sda individually, and it worked, the table was written in about a second. The "not on a physical sector boundary" message is there, too. EDIT: I tried fdisk on /dev/sda, then there were no messages about sector boundaries. After a reboot, I am able to use mkfs on /dev/dm126p1, etc. fdisk shows that /dev/md126 has the same partitions as /dev/sda (but /dev/sdb doesn't have any). But at some point ("writing superblock and filesystem accounting information") mkfs is also blocked. Using it on sda1 results in a "partition is used by the system" error. What can be the problem? EDIT 2: I booted a freshly updated system from a pendrive and was able to create partition table and filesystems on /dev/md126 without any apparent problems. Was it an issue with the support of the hardware? My MB is Asus P9X79.

    Read the article

  • 2 drives, slow software RAID1 (md)

    - by bart613
    Hello, I've got a server from hetzner.de (EQ4) with 2* SAMSUNG HD753LJ drives (750G 32MB cache). OS is CentOS 5 (x86_64). Drives are combined together into two RAID1 partitions: /dev/md0 which is 512MB big and has only /boot partitions /dev/md1 which is over 700GB big and is one big LVM which hosts other partitions Now, I've been running some benchmarks and it seems like even though exactly the same drives, speed differs a bit on each of them. # hdparm -tT /dev/sda /dev/sda: Timing cached reads: 25612 MB in 1.99 seconds = 12860.70 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 352 MB in 3.01 seconds = 116.80 MB/sec # hdparm -tT /dev/sdb /dev/sdb: Timing cached reads: 25524 MB in 1.99 seconds = 12815.99 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 342 MB in 3.01 seconds = 113.64 MB/sec Also, when I run eg. pgbench which is stressing IO quite heavily, I can see following from iostat output: Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rsec/s wsec/s avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util sda 0.00 231.40 0.00 298.00 0.00 9683.20 32.49 0.17 0.58 0.34 10.24 sda1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 sda2 0.00 231.40 0.00 298.00 0.00 9683.20 32.49 0.17 0.58 0.34 10.24 sdb 0.00 231.40 0.00 301.80 0.00 9740.80 32.28 14.19 51.17 3.10 93.68 sdb1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 sdb2 0.00 231.40 0.00 301.80 0.00 9740.80 32.28 14.19 51.17 3.10 93.68 md1 0.00 0.00 0.00 529.60 0.00 9692.80 18.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 md0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 dm-0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.00 4.80 8.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 dm-1 0.00 0.00 0.00 529.00 0.00 9688.00 18.31 24.51 49.91 1.81 95.92 Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rsec/s wsec/s avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util sda 0.00 152.40 0.00 330.60 0.00 5176.00 15.66 0.19 0.57 0.19 6.24 sda1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 sda2 0.00 152.40 0.00 330.60 0.00 5176.00 15.66 0.19 0.57 0.19 6.24 sdb 0.00 152.40 0.00 326.20 0.00 5118.40 15.69 19.96 55.36 3.01 98.16 sdb1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 sdb2 0.00 152.40 0.00 326.20 0.00 5118.40 15.69 19.96 55.36 3.01 98.16 md1 0.00 0.00 0.00 482.80 0.00 5166.40 10.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 md0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 dm-0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 dm-1 0.00 0.00 0.00 482.80 0.00 5166.40 10.70 30.19 56.92 2.05 99.04 Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rsec/s wsec/s avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util sda 0.00 181.64 0.00 324.55 0.00 5445.11 16.78 0.15 0.45 0.21 6.87 sda1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 sda2 0.00 181.64 0.00 324.55 0.00 5445.11 16.78 0.15 0.45 0.21 6.87 sdb 0.00 181.84 0.00 328.54 0.00 5493.01 16.72 18.34 61.57 3.01 99.00 sdb1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 sdb2 0.00 181.84 0.00 328.54 0.00 5493.01 16.72 18.34 61.57 3.01 99.00 md1 0.00 0.00 0.00 506.39 0.00 5477.05 10.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 md0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 dm-0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 dm-1 0.00 0.00 0.00 506.39 0.00 5477.05 10.82 28.77 62.15 1.96 99.00 And this is completely getting me confused. How come two exactly the same specced drives have such a difference in write speed (see util%)? I haven't really paid attention to those speeds before, so perhaps that something normal -- if someone could confirm I would be really grateful. Otherwise, if someone have seen such behavior again or knows what is causing such behavior I would really appreciate answer. I'll also add that both "smartctl -a" and "hdparm -I" output are exactly the same and are not indicating any hardware problems. The slower drive was changed already two times (to new ones). Also I asked to change the drives with places, and then sda were slower and sdb quicker (so the slow one was the same drive). SATA cables were changed two times already.

    Read the article

  • Device cannot be added on software-raid-1 array on Ubuntu 12.04

    - by George Pligor
    Unfortunately all tutorials I have found online until now on how to setup software-raid-1 are outdated on ubuntu 12.40 My target is to setup it on a system with a secondary disk drive that is already running. Format is not an option! I am trying to follow and adapt from 11.10 to 12.04 the following tutorial: http://www.howtoforge.com/how-to-set-up-software-raid1-on-a-running-lvm-system-incl-grub2-configuration-ubuntu-11.10-p2 On the above tutorial there is a successful command which creates a raid-1 array by setting the first disk drive with the installed system as missing: mdadm --create /dev/md0 --level=1 --raid-disks=2 missing /dev/sdb1 But when the time comes to add the first main drive with the installed system on the raid-array with this command: mdadm --add /dev/md0 /dev/sda1 I receive an error message. The error message says that the device /dev/sda is (which makes sense) busy! Note: hardware raid solution is not available since the system is a laptop with two disk drives! Thank you

    Read the article

  • Kernel panic error

    - by cioby23
    We have a dedicated server with software RAID1 and one of the disk failed recently. The disk was replaced but after rebuilding the array and rebooting the server freezes with a Kernel Panic message No filesystem could mount root, tried: reiserfs ext3 ext2 cramfs msdos vfat iso9660 romfs fuseblk xfs Kernel panic - not syncing: VFS: Unable to mount root fs on unknown-block(9,1) The filesystem on both disks is ext4. It seems the kernel can't load ext4 support. Is there any way to add ext4 support or do I need to recompile a new kernel again ? Interesting point that before disk replacement all was fine. The kernel is a stock kernel bzImage-2.6.34.6-xxxx-grs-ipv6-64 from our provider OVH Kind regards,

    Read the article

  • mdadm cron job sends email that cron has run

    - by Andrew
    I've got an Ubuntu 8.04 server using mdadm to create several RAID1 arrays. I created /etc/cron.hourly/mdadm as follows: #! /bin/sh set -e mdadm --monitor /dev/md0 /dev/md3 /dev/md4 --oneshot (Yes, the array numbers are not sequential, and I'm not using --scan beacuse I have a degraded array that may or may not have been used as swap and I can't delete, but I think that's a separate issue. If it's the underlying cause of this, I need to fix it.) mdadm sends me email (configured in the /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf) on DegradedArray etc. events. This is the desired behaviour. What is not desired, and I can't work out, is why cron is sending me (relatively pointless) emails, via an alias in /etc/aliases: From: root@<hostname> (Cron Daemon) To: root@<hostname> Subject: Cron <root@<hostname>> cd / && run-parts --report /etc/cron.hourly Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ANSI_X3.4-1968 X-Cron-Env: <SHELL=/bin/sh> X-Cron-Env: <PATH=/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/sbin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin> X-Cron-Env: <HOME=/root> X-Cron-Env: <LOGNAME=root> Message-Id: <id@hostname> Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 13:17:01 +0930 (CST) /etc/cron.hourly/mdadm: mdadm: Monitor using email address "<root_alias@domain>" from config file I've got a dozen other servers behaving correctly (mdadm sends email, cron doesnt') with identical /etc/crontab files: # /etc/crontab: system-wide crontab # <snip comments> SHELL=/bin/sh PATH=/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/sbin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin # m h dom mon dow user command 17 * * * * root cd / && run-parts --report /etc/cron.hourly <snip anacron jobs> Should I simply remove the --report, or is there something else in my cron config somewhere causing this?

    Read the article

  • SBS 2003 boot stalls at acpitabl.dat

    - by John
    I have a SBS 2003 server running for 3 year without any problems, and few days ago it freezes during the boot. System is using two 500 Gb drives in RAID1 (Intel Matrix 7.5) After trying to load in safe mode, boot stops on acpitabl.dat. First idea was that there is a problem with RAID altough disk status was OK, and RAID status was Rebuild. I tried to boot with each drive, and one gives me the same problem, and the other drive is failing to load. Took both drives out, and checked it on a different machine. One drive is dead, other is without any problems. Returned the good drive back in SBS 2003 with changed status to Degraded, but the problem is still the same. I also have a clean SBS 2003 copy installed on this drive (previous installation), which loads smooth and quick. So, I believe the main problem is this installed version of SBS 2003. Did not make any hardware changes, did not make any updates (not sure about any automatic windows updates lately). Since there are tons posts about this problem, and no clear solution, I am trying to figure how to repair SBS 2003 installation, since there are some installed programs on this installation which I cannot re-install without additional issues.

    Read the article

  • RAIDZ vs RAID1+0

    - by Hiro2k
    Hi guys I just got 4 SSDs for my FreeNAS box. This server is only used to serve a single iSCSI extent to my Citrix XenServer pool and was wondering if I should setup them up in a RAIDZ or a RAID 1+0 configuration. This isn't used for anything in production, just for my test lab so I'm not sure which one is going to be better in this scenario. Will I see a major difference in speed or reliability? Currently the server has three 500GB Western Digital Blue drives and it's dog slow when I deploy a new version of our software on it, hence the upgrade.

    Read the article

  • Creating RAID1 on Windows Server causes not enough disk space error

    - by northpole
    I have three disks. Disk0 (boot), Disk1 and Disk2. Disk 1 and 2 are both unformatted and unallocated drives. I am trying to mirror Disk0 to Disk1. They are both Dynamic and are both the same size (1TB). When I select Disk1 to be the mirror I get the error "There is not enough space available on the disk(s) to complete this operation". I have spent several hours searching for a solution but have not found one. Why do I get this error when they are both the same size? EDIT: Shrinking the volume size on the boot disk by 100MB allowed me to get past this error. From what I read the mirror drive needs to be the same size or larger than the boot drive. So I am confused why that change worked. However, I now get the error " all disks holding extents for a given volume must have the same sector size and the sector size must be valid". I believe this is because the drives are different and one has 512B and the other is the Advanced Drive that is 4KB. What the different sector sizes cause both problems? If I got the same disks would both issues go away?

    Read the article

  • Adding third disk as a single disk in a server with an existing RAID1

    - by slowhandsolo
    I've got a ProLiant DL360 G5 server (Fedora 13) with two SAS disks in a hardware RAID 1, working fine. Now I hot plugged another SAS disk. I'd like to configure this new hard disk out of my RAID, as a single non-RAID disk (ex. /dev/sdb). Even after rebooting the server, I can't see the new disk with "fdisk -l". It displays only my hardware RAID, but not the new disk. [root@myserver]# fdisk -l Disco /dev/cciss/c0d0: 300.0 GB, 299966445568 bytes Disposit. Inicio Comienzo Fin Bloques Id Sistema /dev/cciss/c0d0p1 * 1 126 512000 83 Linux /dev/cciss/c0d0p2 126 71798 292422656 8e Linux LVM Disco /dev/dm-0: 234.9 GB, 234881024000 bytes Disco /dev/dm-1: 10.5 GB, 10536091648 bytes Disco /dev/dm-2: 21.0 GB, 20971520000 bytes Disco /dev/dm-3: 31.5 GB, 31474057216 bytes Disco /dev/dm-4: 1577 MB, 1577058304 bytes However, I can see the new disk using the HP Array Configuration Utility CLI for Linux "hpacucli": [root@myserver]# hpacucli => controller slot=0 physicaldrive all show status physicaldrive 1I:1:1 (port 1I:box 1:bay 1, 300 GB): OK physicaldrive 1I:1:2 (port 1I:box 1:bay 2, 300 GB): OK physicaldrive 1I:1:3 (port 1I:box 1:bay 3, 300 GB): OK => controller slot=0 pd all show detail Smart Array P400i in Slot 0 (Embedded) array A physicaldrive 1I:1:1 Port: 1I Box: 1 Bay: 1 physicaldrive 1I:1:2 Port: 1I Box: 1 Bay: 2 **unassigned** physicaldrive 1I:1:3 Port: 1I Box: 1 Bay: 3 Status: OK Drive Type: **Unassigned Drive** As you can see, I've got two SAS disks in a RAID 1 and the new disk as "unassigned". Is there any way to work with the new disk as another non-RAID single disk? If relevant, I want to create a new partition in my new disk, format it with mkfs and mount it, but as I can't see it with fdisk, I don't know how to do it. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • LVM mirroring VS RAID1

    - by syrenity
    Hi. Having learned a bit about LVM mirroring, I thought about replacing the current RAID-1 scheme I'm using to gain some flexibility. Problem is that according to what I found on the Internet, LVM is: 1) Slower then RAID-1, at least in reading (as only single volume being used for reading). 2) Non-reliable on power interrupts, and requires disk cache disabling for prevention of data loss. http://www.joshbryan.com/blog/2008/01/02/lvm2-mirrors-vs-md-raid-1/ Also it seems, at least to several setup guides I read (http://www.tcpdump.com/kb/os/linux/lvm-mirroring/intro.html), that one actually requires a 3rd disk for storing the LVM log. This makes the setup completely unusable on 2 disks installations, and lowers the amount of used mirror disks on higher amount of disks. Can anyone comment the above facts, and let me know his experience of using LVM mirroring? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • LVM, Soft RAID1, and Replication?

    - by mtkoan
    Hi all, I am practicing putting together a HA file server. It is a linux server with 2 1.5TB Hard drives. My plan is to use LVM to manage the physical volumes into logical volumes for /, /home, and /var. Then use md (soft RAID 1) to mirror the image onto the second HDD, THEN use DRDB to mirror the entire setup another server. Is this overkill? Would I just be okay with just md and DRDB? The system will serve user's homedirs (~100) and probably some groupware or other local intranet. On my own machines I've always separated root and /home partitions in case I break something, I can easily reinstall the OS. Should I follow that same theory here? If so I need LVM, because I really can't predict where we'll need more space, /var or /home.

    Read the article

  • Software Raid1 with Trim

    - by Penetal
    I have two Crucial C300 SSD disks that I would like to use as my OS disks in my new home server. I have read around a little and some places say that TRIM is simply not supported on any raid config, hw or sw. Then on some other sites I have seen that new support have come for SW raid via LVM somehow, and this is what I'm curious to know about. Can I get Raid 1 and still have TRIM enabled on SW raid by abstracting it with LVM or in any other way? I will most likely be using either Debian or CentOS.

    Read the article

  • What is the meaning of the 'Personalities' feature under /proc/mdstat

    - by drcelus
    On some systems I see this : Personalities : [linear] [raid0] [raid1] [raid10] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [multipath] [faulty] md1 : active raid1 sdb1[1] sda1[0] 10485696 blocks [2/2] [UU] md2 : active raid1 sdb2[1] sda2[0] 477371328 blocks [2/2] [UU] And other systems show : Personalities : [raid1] md0 : active raid1 sdb2[1] sda2[0] 204788 blocks super 1.0 [2/2] [UU] md1 : active raid1 sdb1[1] sda1[0] 4193272 blocks super 1.1 [2/2] [UU] md2 : active raid1 sda3[0] sdb3[1] 483985276 blocks super 1.1 [2/2] [UU] bitmap: 0/4 pages [0KB], 65536KB chunk I wonder what is the meaning of Personalities and the impact of having different values.

    Read the article

  • how to backup from opensuse 10.1 server to a new server with opensuse 12.1

    - by jarus
    Im a newbie for this , i want to copy all the files from my old server which is running opensuse 10.1 with a software raid 1 to a new server which has open suse 12.1 with a hardware raid 1 , i had set up a backup script on the old server which back's up all the folders into a zip file onto an external drive . Can i just get that zip file and copy it to the new server , will that work , it might be a basic and stupid question but i want to learn and do it right. Any help , tutorials, links or suggestions will be greatly appreciated Thanks in Advance

    Read the article

  • SSD redundancy via HDD

    - by Mascarpone
    Is there a way to guarantee redundancy to an SSD using an HDD? Raid 1 is the best choice to guarantee redundancy in HDDs, but SSDs are too expensive to guarantee redundancy via RAID. If I was to couple an SSD with an HDD, could I guarantee redundancy using the HDD as a failover device, and lazily mirroring the data on the HDD? (e.g.: every 5 minutes the data should be synchronized, rather than in real time like with Raid 1).

    Read the article

  • NAS device claims drive in a RAID is degraded but S.M.A.R.T. says it is fine

    - by Nathan Villaescusa
    I have a Synology DS213 with two 600GB drives in RAID 1. Last night the device reported that my second drive had become degraded and that I should replace it. When I ran a extensive S.M.A.R.T. test the results said that the drive is okay. How can I confirm that the drive is actually bad? Is there any case that the degraded drive is the good one and that it is actually the other drive that is bad?

    Read the article

  • Resize a RAID 1 volume on OSX Snow Leopard - how? (Note: software raid)

    - by Emmel
    I've scoured the Internet in search of an answer to this question, and as usual with OSX-related topics, I often don't find any deep-dive technical explanations sufficient enough to feel confident doing dangerous things. Here is my question: I have a Mac Pro, running OSX 10.6.2. I have, as my main root/boot disk, a RAID 1 volume called "Mirror1". Mirror1 is comprised of two 1 TB disks. Mirror1, however, is fixed at 640 GB. That's because, I originally took a 640GB disk, bought a terabyte disk, mirrored it (using diskutil appleraid enable...), when it synced I removed the 640GB and replaced it with a second 1 TB disk, and synced again. Voila! A single 640 GB replaced by two 1 TB disks in a mirror.. Actually, no. There's still something missing from the equation: Mirror1 needs to be expanded from 640GB to 1 TB to match the partition sizes on each of those disks. How do I do this? Perhaps the diskutil output will help: -> diskutil list /dev/disk0 #: TYPE NAME SIZE IDENTIFIER 0: GUID_partition_scheme *1.0 TB disk0 1: EFI 209.7 MB disk0s1 2: Apple_RAID 999.9 GB disk0s2 3: Apple_Boot Boot OSX 134.2 MB disk0s3 /dev/disk1 #: TYPE NAME SIZE IDENTIFIER 0: GUID_partition_scheme *1.0 TB disk1 1: EFI 209.7 MB disk1s1 2: Apple_RAID 999.9 GB disk1s2 3: Apple_Boot Boot OSX 134.2 MB disk1s3 /dev/disk2 #: TYPE NAME SIZE IDENTIFIER 0: GUID_partition_scheme *640.1 GB disk2 1: EFI 209.7 MB disk2s1 2: Apple_HFS Mac Disk 2 536.7 GB disk2s2 3: Microsoft Basic Data BOOTCAMP 103.1 GB disk2s3 /dev/disk3 #: TYPE NAME SIZE IDENTIFIER 0: Apple_HFS Mirror1 *639.8 GB disk3 -> diskutil appleraid list AppleRAID sets (1 found) =============================================================================== Name: Macintosh HD Unique ID: 1953F864-B474-4EB6-8E69-41834EBD0247 Type: Mirror Status: Online Size: 639.8 GB (639791038464 Bytes) Rebuild: manual Device Node: disk3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # Device Node UUID Status ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0 disk1s2 25109BAE-5697-40EA-B612-0217851444F7 Online 1 disk0s2 11B83AB0-8148-4DB6-8761-DEF08C855F8D Online =============================================================================== Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Clonezilla is not able to clone a RAID 1 disk

    - by Adrian
    I have a HP Server DL320 G5. There are two SATA hard disks configured as RAID 1 through HP embedded RAID controller. Server OS is running GNU/Linux (Fedora) Server booted up with clonezilla live CD. The image will be stored on a NAS connected through NFS. Clonezilla could mount the NFS share and could see the two hard disks /dev/sda and /dev/sdb. I selected /dev/sda for disk cloning. However I could not see the cloning progress and got straight into a prompt for reboot, poweroff, command line I tried to select /dev/sdb but the same issue.

    Read the article

  • Why can't add a hot spare in freebsd? Can anybody help me fix it?

    - by hamlet
    Why can't add a hot spare? Can anybody help me fix it? mfiutil add e1:s1 mfid0 mfiutil: Drive 1 is not available My mfi status:: mfiutil show config mfi0 Configuration: 1 arrays, 1 volumes, 0 spares array 0 of 2 drives: drive 0 ( 137G) ONLINE <HITACHI HUS153014VLS300 A410 serial=JFWHSB4C> SAS enclosure 1, slot 0 drive 1 ( 137G) ONLINE <HITACHI HUS153014VLS300 A410 serial=JFWJ3AEC> SAS enclosure 1, slot 1 volume mfid0 (136G) RAID-1 64K OPTIMAL spans: array 0 mfiutil show events 1468 (boot + 25s/BATTERY/WARN) - Battery removed 1475 (boot + 52s/DRIVE/WARN) - PD 00(e1/s0) is not a certified drive 1478 (boot + 52s/DRIVE/WARN) - PD 01(e1/s1) is not a certified drive 1480 (boot + 64s/BATTERY/WARN) - BBU disabled; changing WB virtual disks to WT mfiutil show volumes mfi0 Volumes: Id Size Level Stripe State Cache Name mfid0 ( 136G) RAID-1 64K OPTIMAL Disabled

    Read the article

  • MD RAID 1 with external bitmap doesn't fully resync

    - by user64744
    I have an interesting configuration: dual boot system with a RAID 1 that needs to be visible in both Windows and Linux. The Windows install is Win 7 Enterprise, and the Linux install is Kubuntu 10.04. To get the RAID to work, I set it up using Windows's "Dynamic Disks" RAID 1, and brought it up in Linux using MD with no persistent superblock, and a write-intent bitmap on another partition. (Without this bitmap, MD had no way of knowing that the array was in sync, and would do a complete resync every time the array started.) The array is assembled like so: mdadm --build /dev/md1 -l 1 -n 2 -b /var/local/md1.bitmap /dev/sdb2 /dev/sdc2 I expected that the first time I ran this command, it would resync the array, write out a bitmap with no dirty chunks, and all would be good. This wasn't the case: after completing the resync, the bitmap was mostly clean, but about 5% dirty blocks remained, as revealed by mdadm -X /var/local/md1.bitmap I didn't mount the filesystem on /dev/md1 or touch it in any other way. I then found that stopping and restarting the array: mdadm --stop /dev/md1 mdadm --build /dev/md1 -l 1 -n 2 -b /var/local/md1.bitmap /dev/sdb2 /dev/sdc2 did indeed read in the bitmap, with an ensuing resync that went quickly because most of the blocks were marked clean. The confusing part is that this resync further reduced the number of dirty blocks, but still did not remove all of them. By repeatedly stopping and restarting I could slowly bring the dirty block count down to around 0.6%, where it seemed to level out. Any ideas what could be causing this? It smells to me of a race condition somewhere that leads to blocks either being skipped over during synchronization or not properly cleared from the bitmap, but I really have no evidence to prove this. It doesn't look like hardware issues since both drives are new and have zero read errors and reallocated sectors reported by smartctl -a.

    Read the article

  • Resize a RAID 1 volume on OS X Snow Leopard - how? (Note: software raid)

    - by Emmel
    I've scoured the Internet in search of an answer to this question, and as usual with OSX-related topics, I often don't find any deep-dive technical explanations sufficient enough to feel confident doing dangerous things. Here is my question: I have a Mac Pro, running OS X 10.6.2. I have, as my main root/boot disk, a RAID 1 volume called "Mirror1". Mirror1 is comprised of two 1 TB disks. Mirror1, however, is fixed at 640 GB. That's because, I originally took a 640GB disk, bought a terabyte disk, mirrored it (using diskutil appleraid enable), when it synced I removed the 640GB and replaced it with a second 1 TB disk, and synced again. Voila! A single 640 GB replaced by two 1 TB disks in a mirror.. Actually, no. There's still something missing from the equation: Mirror1 needs to be expanded from 640GB to 1 TB to match the partition sizes on each of those disks. How do I do this? Perhaps the diskutil output will help: -> diskutil list /dev/disk0 #: TYPE NAME SIZE IDENTIFIER 0: GUID_partition_scheme *1.0 TB disk0 1: EFI 209.7 MB disk0s1 2: Apple_RAID 999.9 GB disk0s2 3: Apple_Boot Boot OSX 134.2 MB disk0s3 /dev/disk1 #: TYPE NAME SIZE IDENTIFIER 0: GUID_partition_scheme *1.0 TB disk1 1: EFI 209.7 MB disk1s1 2: Apple_RAID 999.9 GB disk1s2 3: Apple_Boot Boot OSX 134.2 MB disk1s3 /dev/disk2 #: TYPE NAME SIZE IDENTIFIER 0: GUID_partition_scheme *640.1 GB disk2 1: EFI 209.7 MB disk2s1 2: Apple_HFS Mac Disk 2 536.7 GB disk2s2 3: Microsoft Basic Data BOOTCAMP 103.1 GB disk2s3 /dev/disk3 #: TYPE NAME SIZE IDENTIFIER 0: Apple_HFS Mirror1 *639.8 GB disk3 -> diskutil appleraid list AppleRAID sets (1 found) =============================================================================== Name: Macintosh HD Unique ID: 1953F864-B474-4EB6-8E69-41834EBD0247 Type: Mirror Status: Online Size: 639.8 GB (639791038464 Bytes) Rebuild: manual Device Node: disk3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # Device Node UUID Status ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0 disk1s2 25109BAE-5697-40EA-B612-0217851444F7 Online 1 disk0s2 11B83AB0-8148-4DB6-8761-DEF08C855F8D Online =============================================================================== Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Server 2008 R2 - Boot disk RAID 1 - migrate to larger disk

    - by William Hooper
    My group inherited several 2008 R2 servers with single 70GB RAID 1 boot/system disks. No other disks in the servers. We need larger boot / system disk. Plan is : to replace one disk with new 500 GB drive wait for resync replace other smaller disk with 2nd 500 GB drive wait for resysnc Now I should have 500 GB RAID 1 with original 70 GB partition Then I would like to extend the 70 GB partition to 200 GB and add D: drive partition with remaining 300 GB Can the above be done using Windows Disk Management and / or Windows DiskPart ?

    Read the article

  • How to determine if a CentOS system is Raid-1?

    - by Tedd Johnson
    I've tried searching for this answer, but haven't found anything elegant. I have numerous servers in a colo that is in another state. I need to find a way to check that the servers have RAID-1 on them, so that I can determine if they were setup correctly by my colo. df -h shows: Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol00 442G 1.5G 418G 1% / /dev/sda1 99M 19M 75M 20% /boot tmpfs 4.0G 0 4.0G 0% /dev/shm however as CentOS uses LVM by default, this doesn't indicate if a RAID-1 is present. it is supposed to be a software raid, so I'm pretty sure there should be a way to check. Thanks

    Read the article

  • File corruption when copying different file on raid 1

    - by Stephan
    I have a RAID 1 configuration of 2 1TB drives on a Fedora 12 box. Most of what is stored there are video files that are numerical labeled. The problem I'm having is that I had one of the video files get corrupted. I copied a replacement from a backup and replaced the bad file and now it works fine. However, after doing this the next numbered file goes from 350MB to 200KB and all but about .5 second of video disappears. If I then replace that file it happens to the next one down the line. Ex: Replace corrupt file 1.avi and file 2.avi shrinks to 200KB. Replace now corrupted 2.avi and it works but 3.avi gets screwed up. I have run SMART tests on the drives and they report fine. Does anyone have any tests I can run to try to figure out what is going on? EDIT: It is a two disk software RAID 1 with an ext4 filesystem

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >