Search Results

Search found 227 results on 10 pages for 'raid5'.

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

• Linux boot on a raid1 software raid ?

  - by azera

  Hello I am trying to convert my single disk boot to a raid1 boot So far here is what i have: I sucessfully create the raid 1 as degraded with the new drive alone, I copied all the data on it I can mount that raid 1, see its files etc I already have a raid5 that is working on the same box (although not booting on it) I have installed grub on both drive When grub boot, it loads the kernel alright, but during the kernel boot it fails to load the "root block device" The kernel tells me : 1 - detected that root device is an md device 2 - determining root devices 3 - mounting root 4 - mounting /dev/md125 on /newroot failed: input/output error. Please enter another root device: ... At this point, if I enter /dev/sda3 (my "old" root device that isn't converted to raid yet) everything boots fine without the root. The /dev/md125 device is indeed created but it seems to be created after the error happens, as in it creates it after loading the device, when mdadm is loaded. Somehow it looks like it can't/doesn't load the raid array before it needs to mount it, and I don't know how I can solve that. My config files (taken from the system once it boots with sda3 as root device): $ cat /etc/mdadm.conf ARRAY /dev/md/md0-r5 metadata=0.90 UUID=1a118934:c831bdb3:64188b84:66721085 ARRAY /dev/md125 metadata=0.90 UUID=48ec4190:a80d4dde:64188b84:66721085 $ cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : [raid1] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [raid0] [raid10] md125 : active raid1 sdc3[1] 477853312 blocks [2/1] [_U] md127 : active raid5 sdd[0] sdf[3] sdb[2] sde[1] 4395415488 blocks level 5, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [4/4] [UUUU] unused devices: <none> $ cat /boot/grub/menu.lst default 0 timeout 8 splashimage=(hd0,0)/boot/grub/splash.xpm.gz title Gentoo Linux 2.6.31-r10 root (hd0,0) #kernel /boot/kernel-genkernel-x86_64-2.6.31-gentoo-r10 root=/dev/ram0 real_root=/dev/sda3 kernel /boot/kernel-genkernel-x86_64-2.6.31-gentoo-r10 root=/dev/md125 md=125,/dev/sdc3,/dev/sda3 initrd /boot/initramfs-genkernel-x86_64-2.6.31-gentoo-r10 # blkid /dev/sda1: UUID="89fee223-b845-4e0a-8a0b-e6cf695d5bcf" TYPE="ext2" /dev/sda2: UUID="a72296a8-d7d4-447f-a34b-ee920fd1a767" TYPE="swap" /dev/sda3: UUID="97eb0a6a-c385-4a9d-bf74-c0bab1fa4dc1" TYPE="ext3" /dev/sdb: UUID="1a118934-c831-bdb3-6418-8b8466721085" TYPE="linux_raid_member" /dev/sdc1: UUID="d36537fd-19a0-b8a3-6418-8b8466721085" TYPE="linux_raid_member" /dev/sdd: UUID="1a118934-c831-bdb3-6418-8b8466721085" TYPE="linux_raid_member" /dev/sde: UUID="1a118934-c831-bdb3-6418-8b8466721085" TYPE="linux_raid_member" /dev/md127: UUID="13a41589-4cf1-4c04-91ca-37484182c783" TYPE="ext4" /dev/sdf: UUID="1a118934-c831-bdb3-6418-8b8466721085" TYPE="linux_raid_member" /dev/sdc2: UUID="a1916397-1b48-45d7-9f98-73aa521e882f" TYPE="swap" /dev/sdc3: UUID="48ec4190-a80d-4dde-6418-8b8466721085" TYPE="linux_raid_member" /dev/md125: UUID="c947ed64-1d4d-4d1d-b4d2-24669fff916e" SEC_TYPE="ext2" TYPE="ext3" # mdadm -E mdadm: No devices to examine # fdisk -l Disk /dev/sda: 500.1 GB, 500107862016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 60801 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Disk identifier: 0xe975e9fc Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 1 5 40131 83 Linux /dev/sda2 6 1311 10490445 82 Linux swap / Solaris /dev/sda3 1312 60801 477853425 83 Linux Disk /dev/sdc: 500.1 GB, 500107862016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 60801 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Disk identifier: 0xe975e9fc Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdc1 1 5 40131 83 Linux /dev/sdc2 6 1311 10490445 82 Linux swap / Solaris /dev/sdc3 1312 60801 477853425 83 Linux Disk /dev/md125: 489.3 GB, 489321791488 bytes 2 heads, 4 sectors/track, 119463328 cylinders Units = cylinders of 8 * 512 = 4096 bytes Disk identifier: 0x00000000 Disk /dev/md125 doesn't contain a valid partition table

  Read the article

• Software RAID 10 on Linux

  - by vpetersson

  For a long time, I've been thinking about switching to RAID 10 on a few servers. Now that Ubuntu 10.04 LTS is live, it's time for an upgrade. The servers I'm using are HP Proliant ML115 (very good value). It has four internal 3.5" slots. I'm currently using one drive for the system and a RAID5 array (software) for the remaining three disks. The problem is that this creates a single-point-of-failure on the boot drive. Hence I'd like to switch to a RAID10 array, as it would give me both better I/O performance and more reliability. The problem is only that good controller cards that supports RAID10 (such as 3Ware) cost almost as much as the server itself. Moreover software-RAID10 does not seem to work very well with Grub. What is your advice? Should I just keep running RAID5? Have anyone been able to successfully install a software RAID10 without boot issues?

  Read the article

• Flexible virtualization infrastructure Design with libvirt

  - by Lessfoe

  I'm going to install a CentOS6 Server with Virtualization ( libvirtd ) capabilities on a DELL Server with Hardware RAID5 of around 6T of disk space ( It has 4x2T disks in a PERC700 RAID Controller ). I'm going then to install some guests which requires few resources except one that needs 500GB of disk space, 8/16GB of RAM and good performances. I was thinking about file images for guests storage but I'm not sure about the 500GB VM what needs good performances so that an LVM device could be better. So my question is what would be the best layout concerning: RAID setup ( RAID5, RAID1 + 1 disk for OS only. ) disk partitioning ( using the entire disk/ leave free space for future use and extending it with LVM ) guests storage management ( LVM devices or file images ( considering the 500GB VM that is performance demanding ) or mixed ) Where to put guests storage? /var/lib/libvirt/images or maybe in a custom dir separated from system /home/VMs Thanks in advance for any hint.

  Read the article

• Windows 2003 Storage Server Hanging on Large File Transfers

  - by user25272

  In one of our offices we have a Dell PowerVault 745N NAS device which acts as the main file server. Its running 32bit Windows 2003 Storage Server SP2 with 3GB RAM. The server holds around 60 users HOME folders, which are mapped via AD. The office clients are a mix of XP SP3, Vista and Windows 7. Occasionally the server will completely hang when transferring large files. When the hang happens the console becomes unresponsive with only the mouse active and blank wallpaper. Sometimes stopping the copy frees the server, sometimes not. The hanging can last around 20 minutes. During this time other servers also become unresponsive with blank wallpaper at the console. If you do manage to get onto another server the taskbar and run commands are unresponsive. This also transcends to the client computers sometimes with explorer crashing. I'm guessing this is due to the HOME folder mapping. Eventually the NAS server with free up and everything will be back to normal. The server is configured as follows: PERC 4/DC DATA 2 - 12 SCSI HDD - RAID5 SHADOWCOPY 2 SCSI HDD - RAID1 CERC SATA DATA 11 4 SATA HDD - RAID5 OS 4 SATA HDD - RAID5 All the drivers and firmware is up to date. I've been through all the diagnostics with Dell and the hardware has come up clean including full HDD tests on the arrays. The server has NOD32 installed as the AV, but the hanging happens when it is uninstalled. There are no errors in the event log when this happens and we don't have any errors logged on any of our ProCurve switches. DNS is fine on the domain and AD from what I can tell is running happily. There are no DFS or NFS shares setup either. All the shares are standard Windows. I've unchecked the allow the computer to turn off this device to save power box under Power Management on the NIC. "Set Link Speed and Duplex to Auto-negotiate 1000 " Increased Receive Descriptors buffer from 256 to 352 (reserves more CPU resource for handling data) I've run network traces using network monitor and have found the following: 417 8.078125 {SMB:192, NbtSS:25, TCP:24, IPv4:23} 192.168.2.244 192.168.5.35 SMB SMB:R; Nt Create Andx - NT Status: System - Error, Code = (52) STATUS_OBJECT_NAME_NOT_FOUND I've tried different cabling; NICs and switch ports all with the same result. Transferring files from other servers on the domain is fine. All I haven't done is run CHKDSK on the drives to look for any file system errors. On the Vista clients I have also run netsh interface tcp set global autotuning=disabled with no result. Could it be that the server has a faulty drive or that the I/O is too much for it to handle? Any ideas why would the hang cause issues with the other servers on the LAN? Many Thanks.

  Read the article

• Need hard disk recommendation for linux home server.

  - by neotracker

  Hello, I'm planing to build a little linux homeserver. It will mainly be used for storage and maybe as an media pc. I plan to build a software raid5 with 4 1.5TB or 2TB hard drives. I already decided to use the Western Digital Caviar Green 1.5 TB drive, but then I read about some problems with the WD green series about many drives failing and that they are not recommended for raid anyway. Of course, I couldn't find much facts on the issues so I thought I just ask here ;-) What hard drives would you recommended for a software raid5 setup? As I only need it for storage, the whole thing doesn't have to be too fast. So I prefer a cheap price and silence to great performance.

  Read the article

• Start a ZFS RAIDZ zpool with two discs then add a third?

  - by Doug S.

  Let's say I have two 2TB HDDs and I want to start my first ZFS zpool. Is it possible to create a RAIDZ with just those two discs, giving me 2TB of usable storage (if I understand it right) and then later add another 2TB HDD bringing the total to 4TB of usable storage. Am I correct or does there need to be three HDDs to start with? The reason I ask is I already have one 2TB drive I'm using that's full of files. I want to transition to a zpool but I'd rather only buy two more 2TB drives if I can. From what I understand, RAIDZ behaves similarly to RAID5 (with some major differences, I know, but in terms of capacity). However, RAID5 requires 3+ drives. I was wondering if RAIDZ has the same requirement. If I have to, I can buy the three drives and just start there, later adding the fourth, but if I could start with two and move to three that would save me $80.

  Read the article

• Setting up Ubuntu Server for hosting Java web applications

  - by Denis Hoss

  I'm trying to set up an Web Server running Ubuntu server to host some Java web applications, with MySQL running on it, an so on .. here is the tutorial I follow: perfect server ubuntu 11.10 The server configuration is: CPU S1155 INTEL Pentium G850 2.9GHz VGA 5GTs 3MB 65W MB Gigabyte GA-H77-D3H Ram 4x4Gb HDD 5x1TB Seagate (4 in RAID5 and 1 for Backup) The problem is that when I am trying to install the Server version of Ubuntu, when the installer asks me whether to activate ATA RAID Devices, and I click yes, he sees only that one, if I click no, he sees all 5 HDD's separate without any RAID, is this normal? I also tried to install the Desktop version on RAID5, but after restart, Ubuntu does't want to boot up, an underscore stands on the top of the screen. I am a newbie in servers and their configuration, in fact I am developer. I need a help from you guys.

  Read the article

• Need hard disk recommendation for linux home server.

  - by neotracker

  Hello, I'm planing to build a little linux homeserver. It will mainly be used for storage and maybe as an media pc. I plan to build a software raid5 with 4 1.5TB or 2TB hard drives. I already decided to use the Western Digital Caviar Green 1.5 TB drive, but then I read about some problems with the WD green series about many drives failing and that they are not recommended for raid anyway. Of course, I couldn't find much facts on the issues so I thought I just ask here ;-) What hard drives would you recommended for a software raid5 setup? As I only need it for storage, the whole thing doesn't have to be too fast. So I prefer a cheap price and silence to great performance.

  Read the article

• 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

• raid md device is not remove from memory, how to overcome this problem

  - by santhosha

  i create raid 10 , i removed two arrays form md11 one by one , after that i going to editing the contents those are mounted ( it will be not responding stage), after i try for remove arrays those are left it is shows device or resource busy ( is not removed from memory). i try to terminate process this is also not work, i absorve from 4 days resync will be 8.0% it can not modifying. cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : [raid1] [raid0] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [linear] [raid10] md11 : active raid10 sde1[3] sdj14 286743936 blocks 64K chunks 2 near-copies [4/1] [___U] [1:2:3:0] [=...................] resync = 8.0% (23210368/286743936) finish=289392.6min speed=15K/sec mdadm -D /dev/md11 /dev/md11: Version : 00.90.03 Creation Time : Sun Jan 16 16:20:01 2011 Raid Level : raid10 Array Size : 286743936 (273.46 GiB 293.63 GB) Device Size : 143371968 (136.73 GiB 146.81 GB) Raid Devices : 4 Total Devices : 2 Preferred Minor : 11 Persistence : Superblock is persistent Update Time : Sun Jan 16 16:56:07 2011 State : active, degraded, resyncing Active Devices : 1 Working Devices : 1 Failed Devices : 1 Spare Devices : 0 Layout : near=2, far=1 Chunk Size : 64K Rebuild Status : 8% complete UUID : 5e124ea4:79a01181:dc4110d3:a48576ea Events : 0.23 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State 0 0 0 0 removed 1 0 0 1 removed 4 8 145 2 faulty spare rebuilding /dev/sdj1 3 8 65 3 active sync /dev/sde1 umount /dev/md11 umount: /dev/md11: not mounted mdadm -S /dev/md11 mdadm: fail to stop array /dev/md11: Device or resource busy lsof /dev/md11 COMMAND PID USER FD TYPE DEVICE SIZE NODE NAME mount 2128 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 mount 5018 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 mdadm 27605 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 mount 30562 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 badblocks 30591 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 kill -9 2128 kill -9 5018 kill -9 27605 kill -9 30562 kill -3 30591 mdadm -S /dev/md11 mdadm: fail to stop array /dev/md11: Device or resource busy lsof /dev/md11 COMMAND PID USER FD TYPE DEVICE SIZE NODE NAME mount 2128 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 mount 5018 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 mdadm 27605 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 mount 30562 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 badblocks 30591 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : [raid1] [raid0] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [linear] [raid10] md11 : active raid10 sde1[3] sdj14 286743936 blocks 64K chunks 2 near-copies [4/1] [___U] [1:2:3:0] [=...................] resync = 8.0% (23210368/286743936) finish=289392.6min speed=15K/sec

  Read the article

• 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

• Ubuntu 12.04 and Nvidia GTX 550 Ti

  - by Jim

  OK I'm currently trying to install Ubuntu x64 Server 12.04 onto the following machine: Intel Core i5-2320 3.0GHz LGA1155 6MB 8 GB DDR3 RAM, Gigabyte Z68P-DS3 S1155 Intel Z68 DDR3 ATX M/B, OCZ 60 GB SSD, 3x Samsung 2TB drives in a RAID 5 array (via M/B) Now what I think is causing the issue is the following: EVGA GeForce GTX 550 Ti 951MHz 1GB PCI-Express HDMI FPB As the server CD works in text mode I haven't had a problem with actually installing Ubuntu. Partioned with: 1GB /boot SSD, 59GB / SSD, 10GB swap RAID5, ~4TB /home RAID5 On a straight boot, you briefly see the GRUB menu, followed by a blank screen. The keyboard and mouse blink as they are initialised but no sign of life from the screen. Followed by a bit of research (otherwise known as google) ... Booted in quiet splash nomodeset Now I have a fully working linux distro at the command prompt. I then proceed to try and update the nvidia drivers with apt-get (after updating repositories etc) and rebooting. Still the same problem. I also tried reinstalling from the CD and installing said drivers in the install process before GRUB was installed, still the same symptoms. Does anybody have any solutions? I'm at my wits end here, I bought this machine to be a linux server / tinkering machine and have just spent 4-5 hours trying to just get a basic install working.

  Read the article

• Xen kernel can't see 2 disks of 6 of 1TB, does it have a limitation?

  - by PartySoft

  Linux gentoo-xen 2.6.18-xen-r12 #3 SMP Tue Oct 5 09:28:53 PDT 2010 x86_64 Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5506 @ 2.13GHz GenuineIntel GNU/Linux I have 6 disks of 1 TB and i can't see all of them only 4, can anyone give me an ideea what can i do ? Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on rootfs 886G 4.4G 836G 1% / /dev/sda3 886G 4.4G 836G 1% / rc-svcdir 1.0M 44K 980K 5% /lib64/rc/init.d shm 7.9G 0 7.9G 0% /dev/shm /dev/sdb1 917G 200M 871G 1% /home2 /dev/sdc1 917G 200M 871G 1% /home3 /dev/sdd1 917G 200M 871G 1% /home4 The hardware is Dual xeon E5506 processors on a supermicro X8DTL mobo 4.346585] ata3.00: ATA-8, max UDMA/133, 1953525168 sectors: LBA48 NCQ (depth 0/32) [ 4.346588] ata3.00: ata3: dev 0 multi count 16 [ 4.352861] ata3.00: configured for UDMA/133 [ 4.352867] scsi3 : ata_piix [ 4.352875] PM: Adding info for No Bus:host3 [ 4.510584] ata4.00: ATA-8, max UDMA/133, 1953525168 sectors: LBA48 NCQ (depth 0/32) [ 4.510587] ata4.00: ata4: dev 0 multi count 16 [ 4.516848] ata4.00: configured for UDMA/133 [ 4.516861] PM: Adding info for No Bus:target2:0:0 [ 4.516905] Vendor: ATA Model: SAMSUNG HD103SJ Rev: 1AJ1 [ 4.516910] Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 05 [ 4.516920] PM: Adding info for scsi:2:0:0:0 [ 4.517452] SCSI device sde: 1953525168 512-byte hdwr sectors (1000205 MB) [ 4.517460] sde: Write Protect is off [ 4.517461] sde: Mode Sense: 00 3a 00 00 [ 4.517478] SCSI device sde: drive cache: write back [ 4.517514] SCSI device sde: 1953525168 512-byte hdwr sectors (1000205 MB) [ 4.517521] sde: Write Protect is off [ 4.517522] sde: Mode Sense: 00 3a 00 00 [ 4.517532] SCSI device sde: drive cache: write back [ 4.517534] sde: sde1 [ 4.524551] sd 2:0:0:0: Attached scsi disk sde [ 4.524855] sd 2:0:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg4 type 0 [ 4.524874] PM: Adding info for No Bus:target3:0:0 [ 4.524928] Vendor: ATA Model: SAMSUNG HD103SJ Rev: 1AJ1 [ 4.524933] Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 05 [ 4.524946] PM: Adding info for scsi:3:0:0:0 [ 4.525216] SCSI device sdf: 1953525168 512-byte hdwr sectors (1000205 MB) [ 4.525227] sdf: Write Protect is off [ 4.525228] sdf: Mode Sense: 00 3a 00 00 [ 4.525242] SCSI device sdf: drive cache: write back [ 4.525280] SCSI device sdf: 1953525168 512-byte hdwr sectors (1000205 MB) [ 4.525286] sdf: Write Protect is off [ 4.525289] sdf: Mode Sense: 00 3a 00 00 [ 4.525301] SCSI device sdf: drive cache: write back [ 4.525302] sdf: sdf1 [ 4.532691] sd 3:0:0:0: Attached scsi disk sdf [ 4.533010] sd 3:0:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg5 type 0 [ 4.977669] scsi: <fdomain> Detection failed (no card) [ 5.030479] GDT-HA: Storage RAID Controller Driver. Version: 3.05 [ 5.030635] GDT-HA: Found 0 PCI Storage RAID Controllers [ 5.372350] Fusion MPT base driver 3.04.01 [ 5.372358] Copyright (c) 1999-2005 LSI Logic Corporation [ 5.579176] Fusion MPT SPI Host driver 3.04.01 [ 5.881777] ieee1394: Initialized config rom entry `ip1394' [ 6.166745] ieee1394: sbp2: Driver forced to serialize I/O (serialize_io=1) [ 6.166748] ieee1394: sbp2: Try serialize_io=0 for better performance [ 6.428866] md: md driver 0.90.3 MAX_MD_DEVS=256, MD_SB_DISKS=27 [ 6.428872] md: bitmap version 4.39 [ 6.431518] md: raid0 personality registered for level 0 [ 6.495979] md: raid1 personality registered for level 1 [ 6.570270] raid5: automatically using best checksumming function: generic_sse [ 6.575523] generic_sse: 6608.000 MB/sec [ 6.575526] raid5: using function: generic_sse (6608.000 MB/sec) [ 6.596226] raid6: int64x1 1835 MB/s [ 6.613231] raid6: int64x2 1773 MB/s [ 6.630256] raid6: int64x4 1675 MB/s [ 6.647296] raid6: int64x8 1027 MB/s [ 6.664267] raid6: sse2x1 3578 MB/s [ 6.681268] raid6: sse2x2 4207 MB/s [ 6.698280] raid6: sse2x4 4625 MB/s [ 6.698281] raid6: using algorithm sse2x4 (4625 MB/s) [ 6.698285] md: raid6 personality registered for level 6 [ 6.698286] md: raid5 personality registered for level 5 [ 6.698288] md: raid4 personality registered for level 4 [ 6.781090] md: raid10 personality registered for level 10 [ 7.007043] Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - version 7.1.9-k4 [ 7.007046] Copyright (c) 1999-2006 Intel Corporation. [ 9.229465] kjournald starting. Commit interval 5 seconds [ 9.229476] EXT3-fs: mounted filesystem with ordered data mode.

  Read the article

• Do I have to worry about "error: superfluous RAID member"?

  - by 0xC0000022L

  When running update-grub on the newly installed Ubuntu 12.04 with an older software RAID (md), I get: error: superfluous RAID member (5 found). error: superfluous RAID member (5 found). Generating grub.cfg ... error: superfluous RAID member (5 found). error: superfluous RAID member (5 found). error: superfluous RAID member (5 found). error: superfluous RAID member (5 found). error: superfluous RAID member (5 found). error: superfluous RAID member (5 found). error: superfluous RAID member (5 found). error: superfluous RAID member (5 found). error: superfluous RAID member (5 found). error: superfluous RAID member (5 found). error: superfluous RAID member (5 found). Found linux image: /boot/vmlinuz-3.2.0-24-generic Found initrd image: /boot/initrd.img-3.2.0-24-generic error: superfluous RAID member (5 found). error: superfluous RAID member (5 found). error: superfluous RAID member (5 found). error: superfluous RAID member (5 found). Found linux image: /boot/vmlinuz-3.2.0-23-generic Found initrd image: /boot/initrd.img-3.2.0-23-generic error: superfluous RAID member (5 found). error: superfluous RAID member (5 found). error: superfluous RAID member (5 found). error: superfluous RAID member (5 found). error: superfluous RAID member (5 found). Found memtest86+ image: /boot/memtest86+.bin error: superfluous RAID member (5 found). error: superfluous RAID member (5 found). error: superfluous RAID member (5 found). error: superfluous RAID member (5 found). error: superfluous RAID member (5 found). Found Debian GNU/Linux (5.0.9) on /dev/sdb1 Found Debian GNU/Linux (5.0.9) on /dev/sdc1 done I would be less worried if the message would say warning: ..., but since it says error: ... I'm wondering what the problem is. # cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : [linear] [multipath] [raid0] [raid1] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [raid10] md2 : active raid1 sdc1[1] sdb1[0] 48829440 blocks [2/2] [UU] md3 : active raid1 sdc2[1] sdb2[0] 263739008 blocks [2/2] [UU] md1 : active raid5 sdg1[3] sdf1[2] sde1[1] sdh1[0] sdi1[4] sdd1[5](S) 1250274304 blocks level 5, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [5/5] [UUUUU] unused devices: <none> Do I have to worry or is this harmless? btw: disregard the mentioning of Debian 5.0.9, that was the previously installed system and is going to be overwritten. It's on /dev/md2 actually.

  Read the article

• Problems migrating software RAID 5 to new server (linux)

  - by leleu

  I have a CentOS setup with sw RAID5 that holds my data. Well, the server died, so I bought another box to migrate my drives to. Only thing is, I cannot get the RAID array rebuilt (not even sure it needs rebuilding, might just need the /dev/md0 mapping created... but I don't even know how to determine what I need!) Some details: RAID5 software (used mdadm) 4x 250GB drives (2 are SATA, 2 are EIDE -- would this matter? It worked fine in the other box...) latest CentOS distro built using mdadm I've got a decent amount of experience with standard linux stuff, but the hardware level stuff runs me in circles. I've spent some time googling and elsewhere here on SF, so please be kind for my newbie questions :). My question is this: how can I diagnose the problem? For all I know, I'm using the wrong device blocks when I try to rebuild the array, but I can't find the command to display only the devices that have some physical attachment. Is there some simple way for me to run mdadm, having it scan over all my physical drives, and say "hey, drives 2,5,6,7 are a software array, want me to mount it?" I basically just took the drives from my old box and put it into my new one. They show up in the BIOS. What steps do I need to take in order to get the array up, running, and mounted? Thanks in advance!

  Read the article

• raid md device is not remove from memory, how to overcome this problem

  - by santhosha

  i create raid 10 , i removed two arrays form md11 one by one , after that i going to editing the contents those are mounted ( it will be not responding stage), after i try for remove arrays those are left it is shows device or resource busy ( is not removed from memory). i try to terminate process this is also not work, i absorve from 4 days resync will be 8.0% it can not modifying. cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : [raid1] [raid0] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [linear] [raid10] md11 : active raid10 sde1[3] sdj14 286743936 blocks 64K chunks 2 near-copies [4/1] [___U] [1:2:3:0] [=...................] resync = 8.0% (23210368/286743936) finish=289392.6min speed=15K/sec mdadm -D /dev/md11 /dev/md11: Version : 00.90.03 Creation Time : Sun Jan 16 16:20:01 2011 Raid Level : raid10 Array Size : 286743936 (273.46 GiB 293.63 GB) Device Size : 143371968 (136.73 GiB 146.81 GB) Raid Devices : 4 Total Devices : 2 Preferred Minor : 11 Persistence : Superblock is persistent Update Time : Sun Jan 16 16:56:07 2011 State : active, degraded, resyncing Active Devices : 1 Working Devices : 1 Failed Devices : 1 Spare Devices : 0 Layout : near=2, far=1 Chunk Size : 64K Rebuild Status : 8% complete UUID : 5e124ea4:79a01181:dc4110d3:a48576ea Events : 0.23 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State 0 0 0 0 removed 1 0 0 1 removed 4 8 145 2 faulty spare rebuilding /dev/sdj1 3 8 65 3 active sync /dev/sde1 umount /dev/md11 umount: /dev/md11: not mounted mdadm -S /dev/md11 mdadm: fail to stop array /dev/md11: Device or resource busy lsof /dev/md11 COMMAND PID USER FD TYPE DEVICE SIZE NODE NAME mount 2128 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 mount 5018 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 mdadm 27605 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 mount 30562 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 badblocks 30591 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 kill -9 2128 kill -9 5018 kill -9 27605 kill -9 30562 kill -3 30591 mdadm -S /dev/md11 mdadm: fail to stop array /dev/md11: Device or resource busy lsof /dev/md11 COMMAND PID USER FD TYPE DEVICE SIZE NODE NAME mount 2128 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 mount 5018 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 mdadm 27605 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 mount 30562 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 badblocks 30591 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : [raid1] [raid0] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [linear] [raid10] md11 : active raid10 sde1[3] sdj14 286743936 blocks 64K chunks 2 near-copies [4/1] [___U] [1:2:3:0] [=...................] resync = 8.0% (23210368/286743936) finish=289392.6min speed=15K/sec

  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

• Increasing SQL Server / Sage performance with SSD? (Dell PE T410)

  - by Anthony

  I have a client wanting better performance of their Sage (Accpac & CRM) server (v5.5, soon to be v7). It's running on 1 of 2 Hyper-V VMs (Svr2008) on a Dell PE T410 server with 24GB of RAM (1333MHz) & dual quad-core, and both VMs (only their C: drives) are on a single RAID5 array. All clients connect via 1Gb ethernet. The 2nd VM is SBS2008 with 9GB RAM (& all SBS dbs & company data are on a separate RAID5 array), & 3GB RAM for the Svr2008 hypervisor. I've given the Sage/SQL Server VM all the RAM I can (12GB) & SQL Server RAM caching (~8GB, never exceeds ~7.5GB, eg. entire db can now be cached in RAM) and that's helped significantly. Upgrading the Hypervisor to Svr2012 is an obvious step, but probably not a dramatic improvement? What about an SSD for this Sage/SQL Server VM (VM = 100GB, <10GB for the actual live DB) ? Can SSDs be put into the SAS hot-swap bays? Or will I have to use the mobo SATA(3Gbps?) ports, or PCI-E SSD card? Should SSDs be RAIDed for this situation? Or is SSD's higher reliability offsetting the need for RAID1/5/10? (I have nightly full disk backups) New territory for me, would appreciate some feedback. Thanks, Anthony.

  Read the article

• Increasing MSSQL/Sage performance with SSD? (Dell PE T410)

  - by Anthony

  I have a client wanting better performance of their Sage (Accpac & CRM) server (v5.5, soon to be v7). It's running on 1 of 2 Hyper-V VMs (Svr2008) on a Dell PE T410 server with 24GB of RAM (1333MHz) & dual quad-core, and both VMs (only their C: drives) are on a single RAID5 array. All clients connect via 1Gb ethernet. The 2nd VM is SBS2008 with 9GB RAM (& all SBS dbs & company data are on a separate RAID5 array), & 3GB RAM for the Svr2008 hypervisor. I've given the Sage/MSSQL VM all the RAM I can (12GB) & SQL RAM caching (~8GB, never exceeds ~7.5GB, eg. entire db can now be cached in RAM) and that's helped significantly. Upgrading the Hypervisor to Svr2012 is an obvious step, but probably not a dramatic improvement? What about an SSD for this Sage/SQL VM (VM = 100GB, <10GB for the actual live DB) ? Can SSDs be put into the SAS hot-swap bays? Or will I have to use the mobo SATA(3Gbps?) ports, or PCI-E SSD card? Should SSDs be RAIDed for this situation? Or is SSD's higher reliability offsetting the need for RAID1/5/10? (I have nightly full disk backups) New territory for me, would appreciate some feedback. Thanks, Anthony.

  Read the article

• Have an Input/output error when connecting to a server via ssh

  - by Shehzad009

  Hello I seem to be having a problem while connecting to a Ubuntu Server while connecting via ssh. When I login, I get this error. Could not chdir to home directory /home/username: Input/output error It seems like my home folder is corrupt or something. I cannot ls in the home folder directory, and in my usename directory, I can't cd into this. As root I cannot ls in the home directory as well or in any directory in Home. I notice as well when I save in vim or quit, it get this error at the bottom of the page E138: Cannot write viminfo file /home/root/.viminfo! Any ideas? EDIT: this is what happens if I type in these commands mount proc on /proc type proc (rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev) none on /sys type sysfs (rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev) fusectl on /sys/fs/fuse/connections type fusectl (rw) none on /sys/kernel/debug type debugfs (rw) none on /sys/kernel/security type securityfs (rw) none on /dev type devtmpfs (rw,mode=0755) none on /dev/pts type devpts (rw,noexec,nosuid,gid=5,mode=0620) none on /dev/shm type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,nodev) none on /var/run type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,mode=0755) none on /var/lock type tmpfs (rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev) /dev/mapper/RAID1-lvvar on /var type xfs (rw) /dev/mapper/RAID5-lvsrv on /srv type xfs (rw) /dev/mapper/RAID5-lvhome on /home type xfs (rw) /dev/mapper/RAID1-lvtmp on /tmp type reiserfs (rw) dmesg | tail [1213273.364040] Filesystem "dm-3": xfs_log_force: error 5 returned. [1213274.084081] Filesystem "dm-4": xfs_log_force: error 5 returned. [1213309.364038] Filesystem "dm-3": xfs_log_force: error 5 returned. [1213310.084041] Filesystem "dm-4": xfs_log_force: error 5 returned. [1213345.364039] Filesystem "dm-3": xfs_log_force: error 5 returned. [1213346.084042] Filesystem "dm-4": xfs_log_force: error 5 returned. [1213381.365036] Filesystem "dm-3": xfs_log_force: error 5 returned. [1213382.084047] Filesystem "dm-4": xfs_log_force: error 5 returned. [1213417.364039] Filesystem "dm-3": xfs_log_force: error 5 returned. [1213418.084063] Filesystem "dm-4": xfs_log_force: error 5 returned. fdisk -l /dev/sda Cannot open /dev/sda

  Read the article

• mdadm lvm and ext4 slowness - How can I speed it up?

  - by beatbreaker

  I can't figure out why I'm getting such terrible times out of my mdadm and in particular the lvm partitions in it. I made the raid: mdadm --create --verbose /dev/md0 --level=5 --chunk=1024 --raid-devices=4 /dev/sda1 /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdc1 /dev/sdd1 # cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] md0 : active raid5 sda1[0] sdd1[3] sdc1[2] sdb1[1] 2930279424 blocks level 5, 1024k chunk, algorithm 2 [4/4] [UUUU] I then created the physical volume, volume group, and logical volumes, I then formatted the logical volumes to ext4 using the following commands I got from here: http://busybox.net/~aldot/mkfs_stride.html mkfs.ext3 -b 4096 -E stride=256,stripe-width=768 /dev/datavg/blah Now I'm confused, I had these lvs running real quick before in mdadm but now that I've 'optimized' everything it's slower, eg, before: /dev/datavg/lv_audio: Timing buffered disk reads: 598 MB in 3.01 seconds = 198.85 MB/sec but now after: /dev/datavg/audio: Timing buffered disk reads: 198 MB in 3.00 seconds = 65.96 MB/sec That's pitiful! What's happened here? Did I not follow the instructions correctly? Can i reshape the ext4 partitons to default back to what they were? (I used defaults before and they were fine!)

  Read the article

• FATA disk performance for VMware

  - by Sergei

  Hi, We are moving to the dataceneter and planning to have tiered storage on EVA4400 - FC RAID 10 for SQL databases and RAID5 across 24 FATA 1TB disks form VMware ESX guests.HP is describing FATA disks as suitable for near online storage, however I am not convinced that 24 spindles will not be enough for running VMWare for 3 ESX servers. Does anyone has opinion on why this could be a such a bad idea?

  Read the article

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

  - by facebook-100005613813158

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

  Read the article

• RAID 5 configuration and future expansion

  - by Alexis Hirst

  hi, I am building a PC to act as a file server among other things, and I was wondering whether it is a good idea to create 2 partitions on the RAID 5 array, one for OS one for data, or to have a separate disk for OS and use array for data. Also, one day i may want to add another disk to the array, so would there be any issues if I had the OS partition on the RAID5 array when it came to resizing the data partition?

  Read the article

• A metalun made of LUNs on two RAID groups

  - by wildchild

  Does it make sense to have a metalun made of LUNs on two RAID groups, where 1 RG contains 5 disks and the other 9? Can the CX 700 use this config efficiently? Both RAID5. I guess not, but I am not sure.

  Read the article

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