Search Results

Search found 1900 results on 76 pages for 'xserve raid'.

Page 4/76 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• 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

• 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

• What will happen with my RAID5 after motherboard change?

  - by abatishchev

  Currently I have ASUS P5Q-EM and 3 HDD in RAID5 using it's on-board RAID controller Intel ICH10R. I want to bye a new motherboard, for example, Gigabyte GA-EQ45M-S2 which also have on-board RAID controller, but Intel ICH10DO. What will happen with my data on RAID5? Will I have to re-create the array from the scratch and lost all my data? Is such array a soft RAID or soft-hard? What if my current motherboard will broken? What will happen with my data?

  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

• misaligned raid partition in Ubuntu 10.04

  - by Linux Jedi

  I attached two identical hard drives to my linux machine. Then using gparted I formated the first 1024 mb at the beginning of each drive as linux swap space. Then I went into system-administration-disk utility. In there I went to file-create-RAID array. I selected the remaining space in each of the two identical hard drives and created a striped raid array. After the array was created, a warning message appeared. It said "The partition is misaligned by 522240 bytes. This may result in very poor performance. Repartitioning is suggested." What do I do now? As far as I can tell, the partitions are identical.

  Read the article

• slow software raid

  - by Jure1873

  I've got software raid 1 for / and /home and it seems I'm not getting the right speed out of it. Reading from md0 I get around 100 MB/sec Reading from sda or sdb I get around 95-105 MB/sec I thought I would get more speed (while reading data) from two drives. I don't know what is the problem. I'm using kernel 2.6.31-18 hdparm -tT /dev/md0 /dev/md0: Timing cached reads: 2078 MB in 2.00 seconds = 1039.72 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 304 MB in 3.01 seconds = 100.96 MB/sec hdparm -tT /dev/sda /dev/sda: Timing cached reads: 2084 MB in 2.00 seconds = 1041.93 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 316 MB in 3.02 seconds = 104.77 MB/sec hdparm -tT /dev/sdb /dev/sdb: Timing cached reads: 2150 MB in 2.00 seconds = 1075.94 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 302 MB in 3.01 seconds = 100.47 MB/sec Edit: Raid 1

  Read the article

• Replacing a non-failing drive in a RAID-0 array

  - by TallFurryMan

  I have a Windows 7 machine booting on a RAID-0 pair of 500GB disks, controlled by an ICH9R. One of those was indicating an end-To-end SMART failure, so I added a spare disk as a temporary workaround, before receiving another to replace the failing one. The RAID-0 rebuilt on the spare and dropped the failing one from the array, as expected. Now that I received the new drive, what are my options to reintegrate it in the array? My first thought was to simply clone the temporary disk to the new one while the array is offline, but shouldn't there be a way to force a second rebuild, just as if the temporary drive had a warning, and drop that temporary from the array?

  Read the article

• Defeating the RAID5 write hole with ZFS (but not RAID-Z) [closed]

  - by Michael Shick

  I'm setting up a long-term storage system for keeping personal backups and archives. I plan to have RAID5 starting with a relatively small array and adding devices over time to expand storage. I may also want to convert to RAID6 down the road when the array gets large. Linux md is a perfect fit for this use case since it allows both of the changes I want on a live array and performance isn't at all important. Low cost is also great. Now, I also want to defend against file corruption, so it looked like a RAID-Z1 would be a good fit, but evidently I would only be able to add additional RAID5 (RAID-Z1) sets at a time rather than individual drives. I want to be able to add drives one at a time, and I don't want to have to give up another device for parity with every expansion. So at this point, it looks like I'll be using a plain ZFS filesystem on top of an md RAID5 array. That brings me to my primary question: Will ZFS be able to correct or at least detect corruption resulting from the RAID5 write hole? Additionally, any other caveats or advice for such a set up is welcome. I'll probably be using Debian, but I'll definitely be using Linux since I'm familiar with it, so that means only as new a version of ZFS as is available for Linux (via ZFS-FUSE or so).

  Read the article

• Assembling Software RAID in Live CD for data recovery

  - by Maletor

  I need help recovering some data that's on my RAID which is on a LVM on my server running Ubuntu. What happened was I deleted the logical volume that controlled my swap space which was on a partition on drives sda2, sdb2, sdc2, and sdd2 in RAID1. This foobared my whole system for one reason or another. Booting leave me with grub rescue and an error saying that it is an unknown filesystem. When I boot to a live cd I can see my RAID arrays and I can even start them up. However, it doesn't appear to mount them anywhere so I can't see the data. I am in the live cd now and I have done sudo apt-get install mdadm lvm2 so it should be mounting them correctly. I just can't see why it wouldn't. Please any help is appreciated here. Here is some output. By the way, there are 3 RAIDs, 1) /boot 100mb RAID1, 2) swap 10gb RAID1, 3) root 990GB RAID5 ubuntu@ubuntu:~$ df -h Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on aufs 124M 101M 18M 86% / none 2.0G 324K 2.0G 1% /dev /dev/sde1 2.0G 826M 1.2G 42% /cdrom /dev/loop0 667M 667M 0 100% /rofs none 2.0G 164K 2.0G 1% /dev/shm tmpfs 2.0G 28K 2.0G 1% /tmp none 2.0G 92K 2.0G 1% /var/run none 2.0G 0 2.0G 0% /var/lock none 2.0G 0 2.0G 0% /lib/init/rw /dev/md1 91M 73M 15M 84% /media/5ac3dbf1-a6c5-409c-96ae-edc6e27992c7 ubuntu@ubuntu:~$ cat /etc/fstab aufs / aufs rw 0 0 tmpfs /tmp tmpfs nosuid,nodev 0 0 /dev/sda2 swap swap defaults 0 0 /dev/sdb2 swap swap defaults 0 0 /dev/sdc2 swap swap defaults 0 0 /dev/sdd2 swap swap defaults 0 0

  Read the article

• XServe won't let me log in

  - by niklassaers

  Hi guys, After a power-failure, my Xserve won't let me log in on the login screen. I can still SSH into the box and access its other services, but the login box just shakes when I write either a local username and password or an ldap based username and password (this server is the LDAP server). Any suggestions on how I can go about solving this problem? Cheers Nik

  Read the article

• Optimizing Disk I/O & RAID on Windows SQL Server 2005

  - by David

  I've been monitoring our SQL server for a while, and have noticed that I/O hits 100% every so often using Task Manager and Perfmon. I have normally been able to correlate this spike with SUSPENDED processes in SQL Server Management when I execute "exec sp_who2". The RAID controller is controlled by LSI MegaRAID Storage Manager. We have the following setup: System Drive (Windows) on RAID 1 with two 280GB drives SQL is on a RAID 10 (2 mirroed drives of 280GB in two different spans) This is a database that is hammered during the day, but is pretty inactive at night. The DB size is currently about 13GB, and is used by approximately 200 (and growing) users a day. I have a couple of ideas I'm toying around with: Checking for Indexes & reindexing some tables Adding an additional RAID 1 (with 2 new, smaller, HDs) and moving the SQL's Log Data File (LDF) onto the new RAID. For #2, my question is this: Would we really be increasing disk performance (IO) by moving data off of the RAID 10 onto a RAID 1? RAID 10 obviously has better performance than RAID 1. Furthermore, SQL must write to the transaction logs before writing to the database. But on the flip side, we'll be reducing both the size of the disks as well as the amount of data written to the RAID 10, which is where all of the "meat" is - thereby increasing that RAID's performance for read requests. Is there any way to find out what our current limiting factor is? (The drives vs. the RAID Controller)? If the limiting factor is the drives, then maybe adding the additional RAID 1 makes sense. But if the limiting factor is the Controller itself, then I think we're approaching this thing wrong. Finally, are we just wasting our time? Should we instead be focusing our efforts towards #1 (reindexing tables, reducing network latency where possible, etc...)?

  Read the article

• Non-Apple drives with early 2009 Mac Pro RAID card

  - by teabot

  Which non-Apple drives work reliably with the latest Mac Pro RAID card (early 2009 Nehalem)? I 'm interested in drives that are = 1TB in size.

  Read the article

• Windows Software RAID 5 Drive Failure Notification

  - by Wayne Hartman

  I plan on creating a Windows software RAID 5 array but need to know when a drive goes bum. I don't plan on wanting to check the server every so often, so how can I have an email sent when a drive goes kapüt or otherwise has problems? Keying off the event log would be OK, but how does one set up notifications on it when the exact event ID(s) may not be known?

  Read the article

• Force RAID to read "exiled" disk?

  - by user197015

  We have a RAID 6 array (Infortrend EonStor DS S16F) that recently had two disks fail. Immediately prior to replacing these two disks, a third, good, disk was accidentally ejected from the array. After reinserting this disk it is marked as "exiled" by the array's firmware, and so even after replacing the two failed disks with new ones the array refuses to rebuild the logical volume and remains inaccessible. Since the temporarily-ejected disk is still functional and nothing has been written to the array since it was ejected, it seems that it should theoretically be possible to recover all the data on the array, but how can we convince the array to use the data from the "exiled" disk? Thanks for any help or advice you can offer.

  Read the article

• RAID 0 Volatile Volume Cache Mode configuration

  - by SnippetSpace

  I discovered that in IRST there is an option to set a cache mode for my 3 ssd raid 0 array. I've read the documentation by Intel and have some questions: Are there any overall benefits/risks from enabling cache mode? As I'm on a laptop, would write back be recommended? I read it increases chance of data loss on power interruption. What is the difference between how windows handles data integrity and the intel driver? Read only mode seems to have the benefit of faster reads, does it have any downsides? Thanks for your help guys!

  Read the article

• Mac OS X Server 10.6 - Apple's software mirrored RAID worth it?

  - by Arko

  Hi, I am installing an Intel Xserve (Quad core Xeon) with Snow Leopard Server (10.6) on two 80Gb 7200rpm SATA HDs. I created a mirrored RAID set using Disk Utility with those two drives, all went fine. I was then asking myself if this is really a good idea. I know that an hardware RAID system would be better, but what about this software RAID? Have you any feedback on this? Will it work fine if one HD breaks down? Does this affect performance? [UPDATE] In short: Hardware RAID is better than software RAID which is better than none. Thank you all for the answers, they were very helpful. Especially Gordon's script to monitor failures. As Apple's software RAID is pretty silent about a drive failure.

  Read the article

• Access Western Digital My Book World II RAID array on my Ubuntu Linux

  - by ZeDalaye

  Hi, My WD My Book World II (Blue Rings) NAS has overheated, I think the motherboard is dead. I extracted the disks and plugged them in my desktop PC running Ubuntu Linux. The disks seems to be alive, they are spinning and the BIOS recognize them but Ubuntu is not able to boot as soon as these drives are plugged in. I got an initramfs shell after few minutes telling explaining that the root disk is not available. I suspect that one of my WD drives took the precedence on the system ? Considering that Ubuntu is able to boot and can see my Western Digital disks... is it possible to access the RAID 0 array ? How ? Many thanks for your help, regards, -- Pierre Yager

  Read the article

• Monitor LSI 3ware raid controller on ESXi

  - by aseq

  This concerns a server that runs ESXi (v. 4.x or 5.x) installed on drives that are configured into a raid10 using an LSI 3ware 97050 raid controller. I would like to know if there is a way to monitor the LSI 3ware series of controllers, in particular the 9750, through ESXi. And to hopefully also run the monitoring daemon LSI provides. I know you can set up a cronjob to execute tw_cli through ssh on the ESXi server. However that's not really ideal. I am not using vcenter by the way. It would be nice to have more than just monitoring working, since the 3ware software has a very useful web client, besides tw_cli.

  Read the article

• Simultaneous read/write to RAID array slows server to a crawl

  - by Jeff Leyser

  Fairly beefy NFS/SMB server (32GB RAM, 2 Xeon quad cores) with LSI MegaRAID 8888ELP controlling 12 drives configured into 3 different arrays. 5 2TB drives are grouped into a RAID 6 array. As expected, write performance to the array is slow. However, sustained, simultaneous read/write to the array (wether through NFS or done locally) seems to practically block any other access to anything else on the controller. For example, if I do: cp /home/joe/BigFile /home/joe/BigFileCopy where BigFile is 20G, then even a simple ls /home/jane will take many 10s of seconds to complete. In addition, an ls /backup will also take many tens of seconds, even though /backup is a different array on the same controller. As soon as the cp is done, everything is back to normal. cp /home/joe/BigFile /backup/BigFile does not exhibit this behavior. It's only when doing read/write to the same array.

  Read the article

• Zero-channel RAID for High Performance MySQL Server (IBM ServeRAID 8k) : Any Experience/Recommendation?

  - by prs563

  We are getting this IBM rack mount server and it has this IBM ServeRAID8k storage controller with Zero-Channel RAID and 256MB battery backed cache. It can support RAID 10 which we need for our high performance MySQL server which will have 4 x 15000K RPM 300GB SAS HDD. This is mission-critical and we want as much bandwidth and performance. Is this a good card or should we replace with another IBM RAID card? IBM ServeRAID 8k SAS Controller option provides 256 MB of battery backed 533 MHz DDR2 standard power memory in a fixed mounting arrangement. The device attaches directly to IBM planar which can provide full RAID capability. Manufacturer IBM Manufacturer Part # 25R8064 Cost Central Item # 10025907 Product Description IBM ServeRAID 8k SAS - Storage controller (zero-channel RAID) - RAID 0, 1, 5, 6, 10, 1E Device Type Storage controller (zero-channel RAID) - plug-in module Buffer Size 256 MB Supported Devices Disk array (RAID) Max Storage Devices Qty 8 RAID Level RAID 0, RAID 1, RAID 5, RAID 6, RAID 10, RAID 1E Manufacturer Warranty 1 year warranty

  Read the article

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