Search Results

Search found 8876 results on 356 pages for 'hardware raid'.

Page 4/356 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • GRUB2 not detecting OS on raid partitions

    - by sleeves
    I have recently added a drive to a system and have successfully raid'ed (RAID-1) the paritions, with the exception of the boot partition. I have it ready and mirrored, but can't get GRUB2 (update-grub) to find it. System: Ubuntu 11.04 Raid Metadata: 1.2 If I run update-grub, it finds the kernel images on the /dev/sda2 partition (present root) but not the images on /dev/md127. /dev/md127 is composed of "missing" and "/dev/sdb2". fdisk on /dev/sdb confirms that sdb2 is of type fd (raid autodetect) and is also flagged bootable. I have two things I want to do. Make the boot.cfg on /dev/sdb2 have a menu option to have the root be /dev/md127 Install grub onto /dev/md127 so the actual boot.cfg from there is being used. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Moving software RAID to Linux

    - by terman
    I'm using a RAID 1 (mirrored pair) configuration in my Media Center/ NAS system. Currently it's running Windows 8 (yeah, big mistake I know) and I'm regretting it (did it for the games, not worth it). Currently I'm having two software RAID 1s (3TB + 2TB) configured with Storage Spaces and unfortunately formatted with NTFS. Now I would like to switch to Fedora (or maybe Ubuntu if there are advantages) for good. Is there a way that I could continue using the disks as they are without the need to format them with ext or something? I'm glad for every tip. Oh, the system disk is of cause not in a raid configuration.

    Read the article

  • Recovering data from a Silicon Image SiI3114 RAID

    - by Isaac Truett
    I have a set of 3 disks in RAID 5 originally created with a Silicon Image SiI3114 on-board RAID controller. The old motherboard is dead. The new motherboard (which has a different raid controller) won't boot from the array. I have no reason to believe that the drives are damaged or corrupted. I'm 99% sure that the problem is that the new controller isn't compatible or I'm not setting it up properly. Is it possible to recover data from the drives using a different controller? Would a PCI card like this one allow me to read from the array again?

    Read the article

  • Raid Shows Up as Multiple Drives - Can't Mount

    - by manyxcxi
    I have a single hard drive that the OS is installed on and I have Sil raid card installed with two matching 500GB hdds set up in Raid 0 and formatted- they're completely empty. For whatever reason they are showing up as /dev/sdb and /dev/sdc and not as a single hard drive. I used fdisk to format both raid drives as Linux raid auto (fd) but I cannot mount either device and dmraid doesn't seem to want to work, what step am I missing? When I installed 9.04 oh so long ago it seems like it recognized and automatically did everything that needed to be done, now I'm stuck. dmraid Output root@tripoli:~# dmraid -r /dev/sdc: sil, "sil_biaebhadcfcb", stripe, ok, 976771072 sectors, data@ 0 /dev/sdb: sil, "sil_biaebhadcfcb", stripe, ok, 976771072 sectors, data@ 0 root@tripoli:~# dmraid -ay RAID set "sil_biaebhadcfcb" already active fdisk Output root@tripoli:~# fdisk -l Disk /dev/sda: 500.1 GB, 500107862016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 60801 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: 0x000b9b01 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 * 1 32 248832 83 Linux Partition 1 does not end on cylinder boundary. /dev/sda2 32 60802 488134657 5 Extended /dev/sda5 32 60802 488134656 8e Linux LVM Disk /dev/sdb: 500.1 GB, 500107862016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 60801 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: 0x6ead5c9a Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdb1 1 60801 488384001 fd Linux raid autodetect Disk /dev/sdc: 500.1 GB, 500107862016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 60801 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: 0xe6e2af28 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdc1 1 60801 488384001 fd Linux raid autodetect

    Read the article

  • raid advice with SSD and two HDD

    - by Nin
    I have a new machine with one 128GB SSD and two 1TB HDD. On the SSD is the OS and my initial thought was to put the two HDD in RAID 1 for user data. After some more thought I came up with two other setups and now I'm in doubt :) Can someone advise what would be the best setup? 1: single SSD and HDD in RAID 1 (original thought) 2: Create 2 partitions on the HDD (128GB and 872GB). Put the two 872GB in RAID 1 and create another RAID 1 with the SSD and one 128GB HDD partition. 3: Create 2 partitions on the HDD (750/250), put the 705GB in RAID 1 and use the 2 250GB as backup and make automatic snapshots of the SSD to (one of) these partitions. I think the 2 main questions are: Is it advisable to create a raid array with only part of a drive and actively use the other part of that drive or should you always use the full disk? Is it advisable to create a raid 1 array with a SSD and HDD or will that blow the whole speed advantage of the SSD?

    Read the article

  • How to Tell a Hardware Problem From a Software Problem

    - by Chris Hoffman
    Your computer seems to be malfunctioning — it’s slow, programs are crashing or Windows may be blue-screening. Is your computer’s hardware failing, or does it have a software problem that you can fix on your own? This can actually be a bit tricky to figure out. Hardware problems and software problems can lead to the same symptoms — for example, frequent blue screens of death may be caused by either software or hardware problems. Computer is Slow We’ve all heard the stories — someone’s computer slows down over time because they install too much software that runs at startup or it becomes infected with malware. The person concludes that their computer is slowing down because it’s old, so they replace it. But they’re wrong. If a computer is slowing down, it has a software problem that can be fixed. Hardware problems shouldn’t cause your computer to slow down. There are some rare exceptions to this — perhaps your CPU is overheating and it’s downclocking itself, running slower to stay cooler — but most slowness is caused by software issues. Blue Screens Modern versions of Windows are much more stable than older versions of Windows. When used with reliable hardware with well-programmed drivers, a typical Windows computer shouldn’t blue-screen at all. If you are encountering frequent blue screens of death, there’s a good chance your computer’s hardware is failing. Blue screens could also be caused by badly programmed hardware drivers, however. If you just installed or upgraded hardware drivers and blue screens start, try uninstalling the drivers or using system restore — there may be something wrong with the drivers. If you haven’t done anything with your drivers recently and blue screens start, there’s a very good chance you have a hardware problem. Computer Won’t Boot If your computer won’t boot, you could have either a software problem or a hardware problem. Is Windows attempting to boot and failing part-way through the boot process, or does the computer no longer recognize its hard drive or not power on at all? Consult our guide to troubleshooting boot problems for more information. When Hardware Starts to Fail… Here are some common components that can fail and the problems their failures may cause: Hard Drive: If your hard drive starts failing, files on your hard drive may become corrupted. You may see long delays when you attempt to access files or save to the hard drive. Windows may stop booting entirely. CPU: A failing CPU may result in your computer not booting at all. If the CPU is overheating, your computer may blue-screen when it’s under load — for example, when you’re playing a demanding game or encoding video. RAM: Applications write data to your RAM and use it for short-term storage. If your RAM starts failing, an application may write data to part of the RAM, then later read it back and get an incorrect value. This can result in application crashes, blue screens, and file corruption. Graphics Card: Graphics card problems may result in graphical errors while rendering 3D content or even just while displaying your desktop. If the graphics card is overheating, it may crash your graphics driver or cause your computer to freeze while under load — for example, when playing demanding 3D games. Fans: If any of the fans fail in your computer, components may overheat and you may see the above CPU or graphics card problems. Your computer may also shut itself down abruptly so it doesn’t overheat any further and damage itself. Motherboard: Motherboard problems can be extremely tough to diagnose. You may see occasional blue screens or similar problems. Power Supply: A malfunctioning power supply is also tough to diagnose — it may deliver too much power to a component, damaging it and causing it to malfunction. If the power supply dies completely, your computer won’t power on and nothing will happen when you press the power button. Other common problems — for example, a computer slowing down — are likely to be software problems. It’s also possible that software problems can cause many of the above symptoms — malware that hooks deep into the Windows kernel can cause your computer to blue-screen, for example. The Only Way to Know For Sure We’ve tried to give you some idea of the difference between common software problems and hardware problems with the above examples. But it’s often tough to know for sure, and troubleshooting is usually a trial-and-error process. This is especially true if you have an intermittent problem, such as your computer blue-screening a few times a week. You can try scanning your computer for malware and running System Restore to restore your computer’s system software back to its previous working state, but these aren’t  guaranteed ways to fix software problems. The best way to determine whether the problem you have is a software or hardware one is to bite the bullet and restore your computer’s software back to its default state. That means reinstalling Windows or using the Refresh or reset feature on Windows 8. See whether the problem still persists after you restore its operating system to its default state. If you still see the same problem – for example, if your computer is blue-screening and continues to blue-screen after reinstalling Windows — you know you have a hardware problem and need to have your computer fixed or replaced. If the computer crashes or freezes while reinstalling Windows, you definitely have a hardware problem. Even this isn’t a completely perfect method — for example, you may reinstall Windows and install the same hardware drivers afterwards. If the hardware drivers are badly programmed, the blue-screens may continue. Blue screens of death aren’t as common on Windows these days — if you’re encountering them frequently, you likely have a hardware problem. Most blue screens you encounter will likely be caused by hardware issues. On the other hand, other common complaints like “my computer has slowed down” are easily fixable software problems. When in doubt, back up your files and reinstall Windows. Image Credit: Anders Sandberg on Flickr, comedy_nose on Flickr     

    Read the article

  • Can't write to raid on Fedora

    - by 99miles
    I just did a fresh install of Fedora 11 and added Raid 1 following this tutorial: http://www.optimiz3.com/installing-fedora-11-and-setting-up-a-raid-0-1-5-6-or-10-array/ Now I see the filesystem when I open 'Computer' in the GUI, and I open it and see 'lost+found', but i can't write to the drive. The option is simply greyed out. And when I view Properties on the drive and go to Permissions, it says 'The permissions of {driveid} could not be determined.' Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • How to use Hardware RAID in Ubuntu Server

    - by user2071938
    I have an Adaptec RAID-Controller and created an RAID-1(Mirroring) succesfully. Now I have installed Ubuntu Server 12.04.3. When I type fdisk -l I get this output: bf@fileserver:~$ sudo fdisk -l Disk /dev/sda: 1000.2 GB, 1000204886016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 121601 cylinders, total 1953525168 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 4096 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 4096 bytes Disk identifier: 0x00000000 Disk /dev/sda doesn't contain a valid partition table Disk /dev/sdb: 1000.2 GB, 1000204886016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 121601 cylinders, total 1953525168 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 4096 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 4096 bytes Disk identifier: 0x00000000 Disk /dev/sdb doesn't contain a valid partition table Disk /dev/sdc: 80.0 GB, 80026361856 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 9729 cylinders, total 156301488 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x0004c454 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdc1 * 2048 499711 248832 83 Linux /dev/sdc2 501758 156301311 77899777 5 Extended /dev/sdc5 501760 156301311 77899776 8e Linux LVM Disk /dev/mapper/fileserver--vg-root: 75.6 GB, 75606523904 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 9191 cylinders, total 147668992 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x00000000 Disk /dev/mapper/fileserver--vg-root doesn't contain a valid partition table Disk /dev/mapper/ddf1_Data: 1000.1 GB, 1000065728512 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 121584 cylinders, total 1953253376 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 4096 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 4096 bytes Disk identifier: 0x00000000 Disk /dev/mapper/ddf1_Data doesn't contain a valid partition table Disk /dev/mapper/fileserver--vg-swap_1: 4160 MB, 4160749568 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 505 cylinders, total 8126464 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x00000000 Disk /dev/mapper/fileserver--vg-swap_1 doesn't contain a valid partition table The 80 GB HDD is for the System The 1000.2 GB HDD should be for my data. But I'm a bit confused becauser there are listed two 1000.2 GB HDDs, due the Hardware RAID shoudln't there be only one HDD vissible to the OS? (I have two 1000.2 GB HDDs in an Raid-1 Array) dmraid gives me bf@fileserver:~$ sudo dmraid -r /dev/sdb: ddf1, ".ddf1_disks", GROUP, ok, 1953253376 sectors, data@ 0 /dev/sda: ddf1, ".ddf1_disks", GROUP, ok, 1953253376 sectors, data@ 0 so It seems to be ok? But how do I partitionate this disks and which one should I mount(sdb or sda?) Hope you can help me thx Florian

    Read the article

  • How to interrupt software raid resync?

    - by Adam5
    I want to interrupt a running resync operation on an ubuntu 10.04 software raid. (This is the regular scheduled compare resync) How to stop it while it is running? Another raid array is "resync pending", I want a complete stop of all resyncing. [Edit: "sudo kill -9 1010" doesn't do anything, 1010 is the PID of the md2_resync process] I would also like to know how I can control the intervals between resyncs and the remainig time till the next one.

    Read the article

  • Use a RAID Controller without drivers?

    - by cian1500ww
    Ordered an Adaptec 1420SA RAID card for my Debian Squeeze media server but didn't check to see if it was compatible, turns out it's not because it uses something called hostRAID which requires special drivers that aren't available for Debian. Could I still use the card as an ordinary controller and just use OS software RAID?? I'm not looking for speed, just need to mirror some drives that will be used for storage, the OS will reside on a disk connected to the server's onboard controller so the system won't be booting from any drives on the Adaptec controller.

    Read the article

  • Upon reboot, Linux software raid fails to include one device of a RAID1 array

    - by user1389890
    One of my four Linux software raid arrays drops one of its two devices when I reboot my system. The other three arrays work fine. I am running RAID1 on kernel version 2.6.32-5-amd64 (Debian Squeeze). Every time I reboot, /dev/md2 comes up with only one device. I can manually add the device by saying $ sudo mdadm /dev/md2 --add /dev/sdc1. This works fine, and mdadm confirms that the device has been re-added as follows: mdadm: re-added /dev/sdc1 After adding the device and allowing the array time to resynch, this is what the output of $ cat /proc/mdstat looks like: Personalities : [raid1] md3 : active raid1 sda4[0] sdb4[1] 244186840 blocks super 1.2 [2/2] [UU] md2 : active raid1 sdc1[0] sdd1[1] 732574464 blocks [2/2] [UU] md1 : active raid1 sda3[0] sdb3[1] 722804416 blocks [2/2] [UU] md0 : active raid1 sda1[0] sdb1[1] 6835520 blocks [2/2] [UU] unused devices: <none> Then after I reboot, this is what the output of $ cat /proc/mdstat looks like: Personalities : [raid1] md3 : active raid1 sda4[0] sdb4[1] 244186840 blocks super 1.2 [2/2] [UU] md2 : active raid1 sdd1[1] 732574464 blocks [2/1] [_U] md1 : active raid1 sda3[0] sdb3[1] 722804416 blocks [2/2] [UU] md0 : active raid1 sda1[0] sdb1[1] 6835520 blocks [2/2] [UU] unused devices: <none> During reboot, here is the output of $ sudo cat /var/log/syslog | grep mdadm : Jun 22 19:00:08 rook mdadm[1709]: RebuildFinished event detected on md device /dev/md2 Jun 22 19:00:08 rook mdadm[1709]: SpareActive event detected on md device /dev/md2, component device /dev/sdc1 Jun 22 19:00:20 rook kernel: [ 7819.446412] mdadm: sending ioctl 1261 to a partition! Jun 22 19:00:20 rook kernel: [ 7819.446415] mdadm: sending ioctl 1261 to a partition! Jun 22 19:00:20 rook kernel: [ 7819.446782] mdadm: sending ioctl 1261 to a partition! Jun 22 19:00:20 rook kernel: [ 7819.446785] mdadm: sending ioctl 1261 to a partition! Jun 22 19:00:20 rook kernel: [ 7819.515844] mdadm: sending ioctl 1261 to a partition! Jun 22 19:00:20 rook kernel: [ 7819.515847] mdadm: sending ioctl 1261 to a partition! Jun 22 19:00:20 rook kernel: [ 7819.606829] mdadm: sending ioctl 1261 to a partition! Jun 22 19:00:20 rook kernel: [ 7819.606832] mdadm: sending ioctl 1261 to a partition! Jun 22 19:03:48 rook kernel: [ 8027.855616] mdadm: sending ioctl 1261 to a partition! Jun 22 19:03:48 rook kernel: [ 8027.855620] mdadm: sending ioctl 1261 to a partition! Jun 22 19:03:48 rook kernel: [ 8027.855950] mdadm: sending ioctl 1261 to a partition! Jun 22 19:03:48 rook kernel: [ 8027.855952] mdadm: sending ioctl 1261 to a partition! Jun 22 19:03:49 rook kernel: [ 8027.962169] mdadm: sending ioctl 1261 to a partition! Jun 22 19:03:49 rook kernel: [ 8027.962171] mdadm: sending ioctl 1261 to a partition! Jun 22 19:03:49 rook kernel: [ 8028.054365] mdadm: sending ioctl 1261 to a partition! Jun 22 19:03:49 rook kernel: [ 8028.054368] mdadm: sending ioctl 1261 to a partition! Jun 22 19:10:23 rook kernel: [ 9.588662] mdadm: sending ioctl 1261 to a partition! Jun 22 19:10:23 rook kernel: [ 9.588664] mdadm: sending ioctl 1261 to a partition! Jun 22 19:10:23 rook kernel: [ 9.601990] mdadm: sending ioctl 1261 to a partition! Jun 22 19:10:23 rook kernel: [ 9.601991] mdadm: sending ioctl 1261 to a partition! Jun 22 19:10:23 rook kernel: [ 9.602693] mdadm: sending ioctl 1261 to a partition! Jun 22 19:10:23 rook kernel: [ 9.602695] mdadm: sending ioctl 1261 to a partition! Jun 22 19:10:23 rook kernel: [ 9.605981] mdadm: sending ioctl 1261 to a partition! Jun 22 19:10:23 rook kernel: [ 9.605983] mdadm: sending ioctl 1261 to a partition! Jun 22 19:10:23 rook kernel: [ 9.606138] mdadm: sending ioctl 800c0910 to a partition! Jun 22 19:10:23 rook kernel: [ 9.606139] mdadm: sending ioctl 800c0910 to a partition! Jun 22 19:10:48 rook mdadm[1737]: DegradedArray event detected on md device /dev/md2 Here is the result of $ cat /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf: ARRAY /dev/md0 metadata=0.90 UUID=92121d42:37f46b82:926983e9:7d8aad9b ARRAY /dev/md1 metadata=0.90 UUID=9c1bafc3:1762d51d:c1ae3c29:66348110 ARRAY /dev/md2 metadata=0.90 UUID=98cea6ca:25b5f305:49e8ec88:e84bc7f0 ARRAY /dev/md3 metadata=1.2 name=rook:3 UUID=ca3fce37:95d49a09:badd0ddc:b63a4792 Here is the output of $ sudo mdadm -E /dev/sdc1 after re-adding the device and letting it resync: /dev/sdc1: Magic : a92b4efc Version : 0.90.00 UUID : 98cea6ca:25b5f305:49e8ec88:e84bc7f0 (local to host rook) Creation Time : Sun Jul 13 08:05:55 2008 Raid Level : raid1 Used Dev Size : 732574464 (698.64 GiB 750.16 GB) Array Size : 732574464 (698.64 GiB 750.16 GB) Raid Devices : 2 Total Devices : 2 Preferred Minor : 2 Update Time : Mon Jun 24 07:42:49 2013 State : clean Active Devices : 2 Working Devices : 2 Failed Devices : 0 Spare Devices : 0 Checksum : 5fd6cc13 - correct Events : 180998 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State this 0 8 33 0 active sync /dev/sdc1 0 0 8 33 0 active sync /dev/sdc1 1 1 8 49 1 active sync /dev/sdd1 Here is the output of $ sudo mdadm -D /dev/md2 after re-adding the device and letting it resync: /dev/md2: Version : 0.90 Creation Time : Sun Jul 13 08:05:55 2008 Raid Level : raid1 Array Size : 732574464 (698.64 GiB 750.16 GB) Used Dev Size : 732574464 (698.64 GiB 750.16 GB) Raid Devices : 2 Total Devices : 2 Preferred Minor : 2 Persistence : Superblock is persistent Update Time : Mon Jun 24 07:42:49 2013 State : clean Active Devices : 2 Working Devices : 2 Failed Devices : 0 Spare Devices : 0 UUID : 98cea6ca:25b5f305:49e8ec88:e84bc7f0 (local to host rook) Events : 0.180998 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State 0 8 33 0 active sync /dev/sdc1 1 8 49 1 active sync /dev/sdd1 I also ran $ sudo smartctl -t long /dev/sdc and no hardware issues were detected. As long as I do not reboot, /dev/md2 seems to work fine. Does anyone have any suggestions?

    Read the article

  • Recommended motherboard with hardware raid for Linux

    - by luison
    Hi. We want to setup an internal office server for testing jobs (LAMP), email and samba. Only about 5-10 users. We are also considering starting to virtualize, initially by a base Ubuntu Server with Xen or VMWare Open Source server. Our current system runs with a Linux Raid which has worked great but it's always been complicated to recover the boot sector when one the drives fail and therefore I would prefer using now a hardware raid instead, but ideally with some kind of software monitoring. For this reason and considering we don't want to spend a fortune a I would appreciate any comments on the following options. Motherboard with RAID with linux support... which could you recommend. Motherboard + Hardware Raid card... Adaptec does not seem to have great Linux suppport. 3Ware seems to have a tc soft controller which we've used on a hosting company, but hard to find here in Spain. HP Proliant type basic server, which? Dell Small Servers... any good for Linux? Thanks in advance for any feedback.

    Read the article

  • RAID 10 not being found by installer

    - by dko
    I had ubuntu installed with raid 0 enabled. I have added 2 more disks went into the bios deleted and created a new raid setup using raid 10 (total of 4 disks now). However during install of ubuntu server it asks if it should activate the RAID Sata disks, I tell it yes. Next step shows up blank for available disks when determining where to mount the root etc. Anyone have a clue as to why this would be?

    Read the article

  • external drive enclosure -> software RAID 5?

    - by memilanuk
    Hello all, I have two older PCs on my LAN posing as 'servers'... one running FreeNAS off a USB stick using three 500GB hdds in a ZFS RAID-Z pool serving as storage for the LAN and one running Debian Lenny with an 80GB drive used as a general purpose 'tinker' box that I can ssh into, etc. Problem is that the SMART report for one of those 500GB drives in the FreeNAS box is showing some pre-failure attributes, and the whole array is a little small anyways. Rather than simply replace one 500GB drive with another 500GB drive, and have no backup of the file server, I'd like to upgrade all the drives to 2TB ones - but I have no where to store that much data in the mean while. As such, I started looking at getting a 4-bay external drive enclosure with an eSATA card for the Debian box, with the hopes of creating a RAID5 + LVM setup using those drives and backing the data up to that external drive enclosure. After the backup is done, replace the drives in the FreeNAS box and rebuild the array there and mirror the data back. Then, I'd have both the primary storage (on the FreeNAS box) and a backup (which I don't have currently) using the external drive enclosure on the Debian box. My big question is... most of these external drive boxes seem to claim support for JBOD, RAID 0, 1, 10, 5, etc. - should I presume that is simply fake RAID like many commodity mobos have, and not really usable in Linux? In that case, with all the drives hanging off the one eSATA connection, will Linux (specifically Debian Squeeze, as I plan on upgrading that box here shortly) see all four drives, or just the first one? Will I be able to configure them in a RAID5 array as desired? Thanks, Monte

    Read the article

  • Four disks - RAID 10 or two mirrored pairs?

    - by ewwhite
    I have this discussion with developers quite often. The context is an application running in Linux that has a medium amount of disk I/O. The servers are HP ProLiant DL3x0 G6 with four disks of equal size @ 15k rpm, backed with a P410 controller and 512MB of battery or flash-based cache. There are two schools of thought here, and I wanted some feedback... 1). I'm of the mind that it makes sense to create an array containing all four disks set up in a RAID 10 (1+0) and partition as necessary. This gives the greatest headroom for growth, has the benefit of leveraging the higher spindle count and better fault-tolerance without degradation. 2). The developers think that it's better to have multiple RAID 1 pairs. One for the OS and one for the application data, citing that the spindle separation would reduce resource contention. However, this limits throughput by halving the number of drives and in this case, the OS doesn't really do much other than regular system logging. Additionally, the fact that we have the battery RAID cache and substantial RAM seems to negate the impact of disk latency... What are your thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Constructs for wrapping a hardware state machine

    - by Henry Gomersall
    I am using a piece of hardware with a well defined C API. The hardware is stateful, with the relevant API calls needing to be in the correct order for the hardware to work properly. The API calls themselves will always return, passing back a flag that advises whether the call was successful, or if not, why not. The hardware will not be left in some ill defined state. In effect, the API calls advise indirectly of the current state of the hardware if the state is not correct to perform a given operation. It seems to be a pretty common hardware API style. My question is this: Is there a well established design pattern for wrapping such a hardware state machine in a high level language, such that consistency is maintained? My development is in Python. I ideally wish the hardware state machine to be abstracted to a much simpler state machine and wrapped in an object that represents the hardware. I'm not sure what should happen if an attempt is made to create multiple objects representing the same piece of hardware. I apologies for the slight vagueness, I'm not very knowledgeable in this area and so am fishing for assistance of the description as well!

    Read the article

  • Upgrading a PERC h310 to a PERC H710 mini RAID controller on a Dell R620

    - by Gregg Leventhal
    I have an ESXi 5.0 Free license host using an internal Datastore (RAID 5, 5 Disk) that was configured with a Dell PERC h310 RAID controller. The disk performance was very poor, so I upgraded to the PERC H710 Mini. The IT Tech installed the controller and powered the host back on. I had to rescan the controller and the datastore appeared. Should any settings be changed in the RAID BIOS, or should the default settings be sufficient? Is they anything to be aware of when performing this type of upgrade in order to achieve the maximum performance?

    Read the article

  • Linux SW Raid: whole disk or per-partition?

    - by Steve Pomeroy
    I have inherited a machine which has 2 physical disks and uses Linux SW RAID(1). Both disks are partitioned and are are all individual arrays (/dev/md0, /dev/md6, etc.). Those arrays are then mounted (/boot, /home, etc. even /tmp). As RAID is designed to mitigate physical failures, is there any reason why one would use this technique over whole-disk arrays that are then partitioned (perhaps using LVM)? This seems prone to more potential issues, but may have some special properties that I haven't been able to glean. I'm planning on moving this setup to: disks?SWRAID(1)?LVM as I'll be making multiple VMs out of the one machine, but wanted to make sure I knew what I was doing when I got rid of the old setup.

    Read the article

  • RAID Read/Write Speed Gradually Slows

    - by Nalandial
    This is actually a server at home, but I felt it was sufficiently complicated as to not have it on SuperUser and could easily apply to a professional situation. I have a file server running Debian (Lenny 5.0.4), and it has an XFS LVM on top of a RAID 5 with the OS drive separate from the RAID. It's also running apache, samba, and postgresql. Side note: before anyone asks, I'm using RAID5 because I get more bang for the buck on raw drive space, and still have some fault tolerance. When the box is started (via shutdown or reboot) reading/writing to it's samba share maxes out the gigabit network connection. Over time, this slowly degrades eventually becoming < 10MB/s; however, when rebooted the speed returns to maxing out the connection. Why is this happening, and is there a way to 'clear' out whatever's causing it without taking the server down? Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Linux software raid robustness for raid1 vs other raid levels

    - by Waxhead
    I have a raid5 running and now also a raid1 that I set up yesterday. Since raid5 calculates parity it should be able to catch silent data corruption on one disk. However for raid1 the disks are just mirrors. The more I think about it I figure that raid1 is actually quite risky. Sure it will save me from a disk failure but i might not be as good when it comes to protecting the data on disk (who is actually more important for me). How does Linux software raid actually store raid1 type data on disk? How does it know what spindle is giving corrupt data (if the disk(subsystem) is not reporting any errors) If raid1 really is not giving me data protection but rather disk protection is there some tricks I can do with mdadm to create a two disk "raid5 like" setup? e.g. loose capacity but still keep redundancy also for data!?

    Read the article

  • Making GRUB see RAID 0 under Ubuntu 10.10 LiveCD

    - by unknownthreat
    I just installed Windows 7 recently, and I expect that it would alter GRUB and it did. I've been following some guides around and I am always stuck at GRUB not able to detect the usual RAID content. I've tried running: sudo grub > root (hd0,0) GRUB complains it couldn't find my hard disk. So I tried: find (hd0,0) And it complains that it couldn't find anything. So I tried: find /boot/grub/stage1 It said "file not found". So what now? How can we make GRUB see RAID 0 under Ubuntu 10.10 LiveCD?

    Read the article

  • Simple mdadm RAID 1 not activating spare

    - by Nick Liu
    I had created two 2TB HDD partitions (/dev/sdb1 and /dev/sdc1) in a RAID 1 array called /dev/md0 using mdadm on Ubuntu 12.04 LTS Precise Pangolin. The command sudo mdadm --detail /dev/md0 used to indicate both drives as active sync. Then, for testing, I failed /dev/sdb1, removed it, then added it again with the command sudo mdadm /dev/md0 --add /dev/sdb1 watch cat /proc/mdstat showed a progress bar of the array rebuilding, but I wouldn't spend hours watching it, so I assumed that the software knew what it was doing. After the progress bar was no longer showing, cat /proc/mdstat displays: md0 : active raid1 sdb1[2](S) sdc1[1] 1953511288 blocks super 1.2 [2/1] [U_] And sudo mdadm --detail /dev/md0 shows: /dev/md0: Version : 1.2 Creation Time : Sun May 27 11:26:05 2012 Raid Level : raid1 Array Size : 1953511288 (1863.01 GiB 2000.40 GB) Used Dev Size : 1953511288 (1863.01 GiB 2000.40 GB) Raid Devices : 2 Total Devices : 2 Persistence : Superblock is persistent Update Time : Mon May 28 11:16:49 2012 State : clean, degraded Active Devices : 1 Working Devices : 2 Failed Devices : 0 Spare Devices : 1 Name : Deltique:0 (local to host Deltique) UUID : 49733c26:dd5f67b5:13741fb7:c568bd04 Events : 32365 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State 1 8 33 0 active sync /dev/sdc1 1 0 0 1 removed 2 8 17 - spare /dev/sdb1 I've been told that mdadm automatically replaces removed drives with spares, but /dev/sdb1 isn't being moved into the expected position, RaidDevice 1. UPDATE (30 May 2012): A badblocks destructive read-write test of the entire /dev/sdb yielded no errors as expected; both HDDs are new. As of the latest edit, I assembled the array with this command: sudo mdadm --assemble --force --no-degraded /dev/md0 /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdc1 The output was: mdadm: /dev/md0 has been started with 1 drive (out of 2) and 1 rebuilding. Rebuilding looks like it's progressing normally: md0 : active raid1 sdc1[1] sdb1[2] 1953511288 blocks super 1.2 [2/1] [U_] [>....................] recovery = 0.6% (13261504/1953511288) finish=2299.7min speed=14060K/sec unused devices: <none> I'm now waiting on this rebuild, but I'm expecting /dev/sdb1 to become a spare just like the five or six times that I've tried rebuilding before. UPDATE (31 May 2012): Yeah, it's still a spare. Ugh! UPDATE (01 June 2012): I'm trying Adrian Kelly's suggested command: sudo mdadm --assemble --update=resync /dev/md0 /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdc1 Waiting on the rebuild now... My questions are: Why isn't the spare drive becoming active sync? How can I make the spare drive become active?

    Read the article

  • Using old RAID configured disk after new disk has been used in the controller

    - by Narendra
    I have Dell Poweredge T100 server with Dell SAS 6 and two hard disk on RAID 1. Last week the server died including one RAID 1 hard disk. We sent the server for repair and the problem with PSU was fixed. But the repair guys also checked the RAID controller by configuring new RAID with their test hard disk. Now if I install one working RAID 1 disk and one new disk, will the RAID controller let me continue my old RAID 1 and resync the new disk and continue? What I fear is the RAID controller will want the test hard from repair guys. Thus I have to re configure RAID 1 forcing me to wipe the working disc. If so, I've to backup the working disc, reconfigure RAID 1 and reinstall? Or is there better way? Note: I'm using DELL SAS confiugratio utility to manage RAID. (Press CTRL+C after BIOS)

    Read the article

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