Search Results

Search found 44026 results on 1762 pages for 'raid question'.

Page 9/1762 | < Previous Page | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  | Next Page >

• Is it possible to use software raid in Windows 7 on the boot partition?

  - by DoctaJonez

  I want to use RAID 1 on my workstation configuration at work, and I've been looking at using the build in mirror functionality in Windows 7. When you click on the add mirror option it presents you with the following warning. I've done some Google searching and the consensus seems to be that you cannot boot from a dynamic volume, but some forum posts seem to indicate that people have tried this with success (e.g. here). With Google searches producing contradictory information I thought I'd ask you guys for an authoritative answer. Can I use the inbuilt Windows 7 mirroring for my boot partition? Or as I suspect, will it make it unbootable due to it being converted to a dynamic disk?

  Read the article

• SSD RAID 5 or 10?

  - by Kyle

  I have a few extra SSD drives (I know its rare but this has actually happened). I figured since I have almost 500 GB in SSD's I might as well replace all of my standard HDD's with them. I currently have a RAID 5 setup and enjoy the the speed and redundancy with 10k RPM drives. Should I bother to put my SSD's in RAID 5? I have not heard of anyone doing this and have no idea how it is going to work out. The loss of space doesn't really bother me since I have a 2 TB NAS with all my media on it. Does anyone have experience with putting solid state drives in a RAID 5. If RAID 5 is a bad idea has anyone had experience with a RAID 10? is it possible to stripe the SSD's and provide redundancy with standard HDD's?

  Read the article

• converting 0+1 raid array to 0

  - by werelord

  I'm currently running raid 0+1; four 500 GB drives in the array.. I'm looking at migrating the array from 0+1 (Stripe+Mirror) to 0 only (stripe).. The goal is to remove the hard drives from the array in order to put them in the newly purchased Drobo, then copy the data from the remaining striped raid to the said Drobo.. Is it sufficient to just remove the drives themselves and change the raid configuration within the nvidia raid config?? Or is there something more that needs to be done?? Does the order matter (i.e. removing drives first or changing the raid configuration??) Is it possible to migrate the array this way without having any loss of data? I'm wary about burning all that data to DVDs (few hundred GB worth) to back it up.. Any other advice from people that may have done this (or have other insight) would be helpful as well..

  Read the article

• OSX Dirve dropped out of RAID 5 Array?

  - by user41724

  I had a drive "Fail" and drop out of our raid 5 array... After reboot the drive came back up, but its "Roaming". How do I re-integrate it back into the RAID 5? Right now I have no redundancy with only 2 disks in the array. The migrate RAID Set feature of RAID Utility seems to want to crate a RAID 0 only? I have provided links to some screen caps. http://tiny.cc/3ns5r Any help would be appreciated. Thanks

  Read the article

• Use RAID for desktop computer?

  - by NickAldwin

  I'm building a new computer over the summer. I'm fairly competent in computer hardware, and am thus building the computer from scratch. I have everything planned out, but I was wondering if I should consider RAID/what RAID to use. I plan to purchase 2x1TB drives. Currently I'm leaning toward RAID 1 for the redundancy -- I've heard newer super-capacity drives fail more often than one would think, and I don't want to have a problem and lose all my data. What do you think? My mobo supports RAID 0/1/5/10. Is it worth it to use RAID at all, or should I just use a backup service like Mozy? Should I consider RAID 0 instead, for the performance? I'm kind-of going back and forth on this one. Thanks a lot for your help. EDIT: I'd like to avoid the OS drive different from Data drive situation, because that can get frustrating when programs like to store a lot of data in their program files folder. I've lived with that situation before and it gets annoying after a while.

  Read the article

• Error 0x80300001 Installing Windows Server 2008 R2 64bit on FastTrak TX4660 RAID volume

  - by Konstantin Boyandin

  I am trying to install Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprise 64bit on the following hardware: motherboard Intel DBS1200BTL Promise FastTrak TX4660 RAID controller 4 disks set up in two RAID1 arrays (handled by FastTrak) I am trying to install Windows so it would boot from RAID1 volume created with the FastTrak controller. The installation goes as in the manual, I insert the disk with the driver, select 'Browse' and specify the correct driver, it finds all the RAID arrays but notifies me that error 0x80300001 happened, Windows can't be installed on the mentioned RAID volumes, since they may not be bootable (even though the target RAID volume is the first in boot options list). If I proceed with the installation, Windows copies and unpacks itself, performs other standard actions after that. After the computer is restarted, it won't boot (Windows Boot Manager appears in the boot devices list; however, neither it nor the RAID volume itself does not boot). Is it a known problem? I can attach the boot disks to the motherboard and use its RAID capabilities instead, but I'd prefer FastTrak ones. Driver version is 1.3.0.4. Thanks.

  Read the article

• Getting Grub2 to recognize a Raid 10 boot/root

  - by xenoterracide

  I've been trying to get my raid to boot from grub2 for about 2 days now and I don't seem to be getting closer. The problem appears to be that it doesn't recognize my raid at all. It doesn't see (md0) etc. I'm not sure Why or how to change this. I'm using mdadm, 2 device (essentially a raid1) raid10,f2, which is currently degraded. I have tried adding the raid and mdraid modules with grub install along with others. I've tried several variation on grub-install such as grub-install --debug --no-floppy --modules="biosdisk part_msdos chain raid mdraid ext2 linux search ata normal" /dev/md0 I've been searching the net for an answer to what I haven't done but no luck. On my other drive which I plan on removing the raid is initialized and mounted fine on boot, but it's not the boot/root for that setup. My grub.cfg isn't recognized by grub since it can't read the raid partition so I'm not posting that. md0 is not listed in my /boot/grub/device.map.

  Read the article

• Move an existing RAID 5 array from Ubuntu to Gentoo

  - by Cocoabean

  I have a 64-bit Ubuntu machine with a 4-disk RAID 5 using software raid (md). I've been able to boot an Ubuntu LiveCD and recognize the array with a simple mdadm -A /dev/md0. It was easy to mount after that and nothing had to rebuild. I'm installing Gentoo on this box now (multi-boot, non-RAID root partition) and I have md auto-detect turned on in the kernel. When I boot Gentoo I get: "invalid superblock magic on sdd" for each of the drives in the array. I boot back to Ubuntu and they mount no problem. I tried copying the mdadm.conf that works in Ubuntu to Gentoo, and then ran mdadm -A /dev/md0 but it reports that there is no array named md0. I don't want to lose data (obviously) and I don't want to have to let the RAID rebuild every time I switch between OSes. Any help is appreciated. Both are using mdadm 3.1.4 Both are running 64-bit kernels. mdadm -D /dev/md0 from Ubuntu yields: http://pastebin.com/5gj2QNkV UPDATE: After rebooting I noticed that it still complains about invalid blocks, but cat /proc/mdstat shows an inactive /dev/md127 with the same disks as my raid. I want to mount it but I don't want to get stuck waiting for a rebuild or destroying it inadvertently. mdadm -D /dev/md127 Here is pastebin of mdadm -D /dev/md127 on gentoo: http://pastebin.com/gDCWn0Rn UPDATE II: dmesg output about 'invalid raid superblocks' http://paste.ubuntu.com/885471/ fdisk -l from Ubuntu, /dev/md0 does not have any partitions but I do have it mounted and accessible: http://paste.ubuntu.com/885475/

  Read the article

• linux hardware raid 10 / lvm / virtual machine partition alignment and filesystem optimization

  - by Jason Ward

  I've been reading everything I can find about partition alignment and filesystem optimization (ext4 and xfs) but still don't know enough to be confident in setting up my current configuration. My remaining confusion comes from the LVM layer and if I should use raid parameters on the filesystem in guest os'es. My main questions are: When I use 'pvcreate --dataalignment' do I use the stripe-width as calculated for a filesystem on RAID (128kB for ext4 in my situation), the Stripe size of the RAID set (256kB), something else altogether, or do I not need this? When I create ext2/3/4 or xfs filesystems in guests on the Logical Volumes, should I add the settings for the underlying RAID (e.g. mkfs.ext4 -b 4096 -E stride=64,stripe-width=128)? Does anyone see any glaring errors in my set up below? I'm running some benchmarks now but haven't done enough to start comparing results. I have four drives in RAID 10 on a 3ware 9750-4i controller (more details on the settings below) giving me a 6.0TB device at /dev/sda. Here is my partition table: Model: LSI 9750-4i DISK (scsi) Disk /dev/sda: 5722024MiB Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B Partition Table: gpt Number Start End Size File system Name Flags 1 1.00MiB 257MiB 256MiB ext4 BOOTPART boot 2 257MiB 4353MiB 4096MiB linux-swap(v1) 3 4353MiB 266497MiB 262144MiB ext4 4 266497MiB 4460801MiB 4194304MiB Partition 1 is to be the /boot partition for my xen host. Partition 2 is swap. Partition 3 is to be the root (/) for my xen host. Partition 4 is to be (the only) physical volume to be used by LVM (for those who are counting, I left about 1.2TB unallocated for now) For my Xen guests, I usually create a Logical Volume of the needed size and present it to the guests for them to partition as needed. I know there are other ways of handling that but this method works best for my situation. Here's the hardware of interest on my CentOS 6.3 Xen Host: 4x Seagate Barracuda 3TB ST3000DM001 Drives (sector size: 512 logical/4096 physical) 3ware 9750-4i w/BBU (sector size reported: 512 logical/512 physical) All four drives make up a RAID 10 array. Stripe: 256kB Write Cache enabled Read Cache: intelligent StoreSave: Balance Thanks!

  Read the article

• Preventing h/w RAID cards from dropping slow JBOD disks

  - by Kevin

  I'm considering buying a used SAS h/w RAID card for externally attaching HDDs to an HP ProLiant I'm setting up. However, I only require RAID functionality on some of the drives. Theoretically it should be simple to JBOD the other drives, but some of them are inexpensive SATA disks and probably cannot have TLER disabled. I'd like to know, prior to actually ordering a RAID card, whether typically RAID cards would still enforce dropping of disks that do not respond within a few seconds, even if the disk is in a JBOD, and whether there is any way to disable this. Ideally it would be nice to be able to select certain SAS ports that will be pass-through, bypassing the RAID engine entirely and just acting as an HBA for those ports. I know I could buy a separate SAS HBA but that seems like a waste of $ and is also impractical as it's a 1U server so space is extremely limited. My question then is whether the functionality I'm looking for (pass-through on certain ports or at least JBOD drives not getting themselves dropped due to slow response) is typical of proper h/w RAID cards such as PERC 5/E etc. I've browsed through the latter's manual but unfortunately, as with most user manuals, it states the obvious and doesn't state the unobvious. Thanks for any info, Kevin

  Read the article

• Backup data from RAID 1 disk out of its server

  - by Doomsday

  I'm facing with a pretty easy problem in my opinion. I've extracted a working disk from a RAID1 and I'm looking to copy only data (FS and RAID configuration doesn't matter) into another location (another FS). My problem is I'm not able to mount properly this disk into another linux. I've first looked the partition table : # fdisk -l /dev/sdc Disk /dev/sdc: 640.1 GB, 640135028736 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 77825 cylinders, total 1250263728 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 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdc1 63 1249535699 624767818+ fd Linux raid autodetect /dev/sdc2 1249535700 1250017649 240975 fd Linux raid autodetect /dev/sdc3 1250017650 1250258624 120487+ 82 Linux swap / Solaris I've understood I should use dmraid tools. Once installed : # cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : md0 : inactive sdc1[1](S) 624767744 blocks unused devices: <none> And some other informations : # mdadm --examine /dev/sdc1 /dev/sdc1: Magic : a92b4efc Version : 0.90.00 UUID : 8f292f54:7e5aef72:7e5ab5fd:b348fd05 Creation Time : Mon Jun 2 03:39:41 2008 Raid Level : raid1 Used Dev Size : 624767744 (595.82 GiB 639.76 GB) Array Size : 624767744 (595.82 GiB 639.76 GB) Raid Devices : 2 Total Devices : 2 Preferred Minor : 0 Update Time : Tue Feb 7 22:34:59 2012 State : clean Active Devices : 2 Working Devices : 2 Failed Devices : 0 Spare Devices : 0 Checksum : a505b324 - correct Events : 15148 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State this 1 8 1 1 active sync /dev/sda1 0 0 8 17 0 active sync /dev/sdb1 1 1 8 1 1 active sync /dev/sda1 From here, I've tried to mount but I'm not comfortable with dmtools and how it's working. # mount /dev/sdc1 /mnt/sdc1 mount: unknown filesystem type 'linux_raid_member' # mount /dev/md0 /mnt/sdc1 mount: /dev/md0: can't read superblock I've seen some options to alter RAID array with mdadm but I only want to copy data on its filesystem before wiping them... Anyone has a clue ?

  Read the article

• Unable to Install GRUB in /dev/sda on raid drives

  - by Henry

  I'm trying to install 12.04LTS on a server but keep running into the unable to install grub error like so "Unable to Install GRUB in /dev/sda". The drives are in raid1 and I'm using fakeraid on a supermicro motherboard, which according to the manual is fully supported. I've tried installing both from USB and CD-R but still no luck. I'm not dual booting with any other OS, just using 2x320gb drives and have been choosing to install using the entire disk. Any ideas what I'm doing wrong or can do to fix this? Thanks

  Read the article

• Fake RAID (dmraid) not seeing new SATA drives

  - by rausch

  I have three drives in my machine, one SSD with 32GB and two 1TB drives, attached to an Intel 82801JI (ICH10) SATA AHCI Controller. The problem is, that I can access only one of the 1TB drives when the other one is not plugged in. When it is plugged in I see the drives as sda and sdb, but there seem to be no partitions. Looking at these drives with cfdisk, the partitions are there, though. Both of the 1TB drives are carrying a partition, being part of a software RAID1, created with mdadm. Before I threw the SSD into the mix, the other two have been working fine. Any hints?

  Read the article

• SQL SERVER – Question to You – When to use Function and When to use Stored Procedure

  - by pinaldave

  This week has been very interesting week. I have asked few questions to users and have received remarkable participation on the subject. Q1) SQL SERVER – Puzzle – SELECT * vs SELECT COUNT(*) Q2) SQL SERVER – Puzzle – Statistics are not Updated but are Created Once Keeping the same spirit up, I am asking the third question over here. Q3) When to use User Defined Function and when to use Stored Procedure in your development? Personally, I believe that they are both different things - they cannot be compared. I can say, it will be like comparing apples and oranges. Each has its own unique use. However, they can be used interchangeably at many times and in real life (i.e., production environment). I have personally seen both of these being used interchangeably many times. This is the precise reason for asking this question. When do you use Function and when do you use Stored Procedure? What are Pros and Cons of each of them when used instead of each other? If you are going to answer that ‘To avoid repeating code, you use Function’ - please think harder! Stored procedure can do the same. In SQL Server Denali, even the stored procedure can return the result just like Function in SELECT statement; so if you are going to answer with ‘Function can be used in SELECT, whereas Stored Procedure cannot be used’ - again think harder! (link). Now, what do you say? I will post the answers of all the three questions with due credit next week. Reference: Pinal Dave (http://blog.SQLAuthority.com) Filed under: Pinal Dave, PostADay, Readers Question, SQL, SQL Authority, SQL Function, SQL Puzzle, SQL Query, SQL Server, SQL Stored Procedure, SQL Tips and Tricks, SQLServer, T SQL, Technology

  Read the article

• Ubuntu 12.04 boot degraded raid

  - by beacon_bonanza

  I've installed Ubuntu 12.04.1 in a new server and set up the 4 hard drives with 3 RAID 1 devices, the configuration is such that the first two drives have md0 (swap space) and md1 (/) with the third and fourth drives having md2 (/var). I've been testing the operation under a drive failure and found that the system boots fine if I remove disk two but if I remove disk one then the system gets to grub and then just restarts. I'm confused as to why grub appears to be loading properly from disk two but then the boot fails. I've tried to copy the MBR from disk 1 to 2: dd if=/dev/sda of=/dev/sdb bs=512 count=1 but this didn't make a difference. Any ideas how to get it to boot from just the second disk? fdisk -l Disk /dev/sda: 2000.4 GB, 2000398934016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 243201 cylinders, total 3907029168 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: 0x000ccfa5 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 2048 31250431 15624192 fd Linux RAID autodetect /dev/sda2 * 31250432 3907028991 1937889280 fd Linux RAID autodetect Disk /dev/sdb: 2000.4 GB, 2000398934016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 243201 cylinders, total 3907029168 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: 0x000ccfa5 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdb1 2048 31250431 15624192 fd Linux RAID autodetect /dev/sdb2 * 31250432 3907028991 1937889280 fd Linux RAID autodetect Disk /dev/sdd: 2000.4 GB, 2000398934016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 243201 cylinders, total 3907029168 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: 0x00035b05 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdd1 2048 3907028991 1953513472 fd Linux RAID autodetect Disk /dev/sdc: 2000.4 GB, 2000398934016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 243201 cylinders, total 3907029168 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: 0x000c73aa Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdc1 2048 3907028991 1953513472 fd Linux RAID autodetect Disk /dev/md1: 1984.3 GB, 1984264208384 bytes 2 heads, 4 sectors/track, 484439504 cylinders, total 3875516032 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/md2: 2000.3 GB, 2000263380992 bytes 2 heads, 4 sectors/track, 488345552 cylinders, total 3906764416 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/md0: 16.0 GB, 15990652928 bytes 2 heads, 4 sectors/track, 3903968 cylinders, total 31231744 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

  Read the article

• Linux software Raid 10 no superblock

  - by Shoshomiga

  I have a software raid 10 with 6 x 2tb hard drives (raid 1 for /boot), ubuntu 10.04 is the os. I had a raid controller failure that put 2 drives out of sync, crashed the system and initially the os didnt boot up and went into initramfs instead, saying that drives were busy but I eventually managed to bring the raid up by stopping and assembling the drives. The os booted up and said that there were filesystem errors, I chose to ignore because it would remount the fs in read-only mode if there was a problem. Everything seemed to be working fine and the 2 drives started to rebuild, I was sure that it was a sata controller failure because I had dma errors in my log files. The os crashed soon after that with ext errors. Now its not bringing up the raid, it says that there is no superblock on /dev/sda2. I tried to reassemble manually with all the device names but it still would not bring up the raid 10 complaining about the missing superblock on sda2, and sda1 was also dropped from the raid 1. When I did examine on the raid10 it says that 1 of the initially failed drives is a spare, the other is spare rebuilding and sda2 is removed. It seems that sda decided to fail right when the system was vulnerable to it because when I boot up a live cd it spews out sda unrecoverable read failures. I have been trying to fix this all week but I'm not sure where to go with this now, I ordered more hard drives because I didn't have a complete backup, but its too late for that now and the only thing I could do is mirror all the hard drives onto the new ones (I'm not sure whether sda was mirrored without errors). On the internet I read that you can recover from this by recreating the array with the same options as when it was made, however because sda is failing I cant use it and I don't want to risk using its mirror instead, so I'm waiting to get another hard drive. I'm also not sure whether to include the out of sync drives or if I can actually use those instead to recover the array. Sorry if this is a mess to read but I've been trying to fix this all day and its late at night now, any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated. I also did a memtest and changed the motherboard in addition to everything else. EDIT: This is my partition layout Disk /dev/sdb: 2000.4 GB, 2000398934016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 243201 cylinders, total 3907029168 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: 0x0009c34a Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdb1 * 2048 511999 254976 83 Linux /dev/sdb2 512000 3904980991 1952234496 83 Linux /dev/sdb3 3904980992 3907028991 1024000 82 Linux swap / Solaris

  Read the article

• SQL SERVER – Find Largest Supported DML Operation – Question to You

  - by pinaldave

  SQL Server is very big and it is not possible to know everything in SQL Server but we all keep learning. Recently I was going over the best practices of transactions log and I come across following statement. The log size must be at least twice the size of largest supported DML operation (using uncompressed data volumes). First of all I totally agree with this statement. However, here is my question – How do we measure the size of the largest supported DML operation? I welcome all the opinion and suggestions. I will combine the list and will share that with all of you with due credit. Reference: Pinal Dave (http://blog.SQLAuthority.com) Filed under: Best Practices, Pinal Dave, Readers Contribution, Readers Question, SQL, SQL Authority, SQL Query, SQL Server, SQL Tips and Tricks, SQLAuthority News, SQLServer, T SQL, Technology

  Read the article

• Do RAID controllers commonly have SATA drive brand compatibility issues?

  - by Jeff Atwood

  We've struggled with the RAID controller in our database server, a Lenovo ThinkServer RD120. It is a rebranded Adaptec that Lenovo / IBM dubs the ServeRAID 8k. We have patched this ServeRAID 8k up to the very latest and greatest: RAID bios version RAID backplane bios version Windows Server 2008 driver This RAID controller has had multiple critical BIOS updates even in the short 4 month time we've owned it, and the change history is just.. well, scary. We've tried both write-back and write-through strategies on the logical RAID drives. We still get intermittent I/O errors under heavy disk activity. They are not common, but serious when they happen, as they cause SQL Server 2008 I/O timeouts and sometimes failure of SQL connection pools. We were at the end of our rope troubleshooting this problem. Short of hardcore stuff like replacing the entire server, or replacing the RAID hardware, we were getting desperate. When I first got the server, I had a problem where drive bay #6 wasn't recognized. Switching out hard drives to a different brand, strangely, fixed this -- and updating the RAID BIOS (for the first of many times) fixed it permanently, so I was able to use the original "incompatible" drive in bay 6. On a hunch, I began to assume that the Western Digital SATA hard drives I chose were somehow incompatible with the ServeRAID 8k controller. Buying 6 new hard drives was one of the cheaper options on the table, so I went for 6 Hitachi (aka IBM, aka Lenovo) hard drives under the theory that an IBM/Lenovo RAID controller is more likely to work with the drives it's typically sold with. Looks like that hunch paid off -- we've been through three of our heaviest load days (mon,tue,wed) without a single I/O error of any kind. Prior to this we regularly had at least one I/O "event" in this time frame. It sure looks like switching brands of hard drive has fixed our intermittent RAID I/O problems! While I understand that IBM/Lenovo probably tests their RAID controller exclusively with their own brand of hard drives, I'm disturbed that a RAID controller would have such subtle I/O problems with particular brands of hard drives. So my question is, is this sort of SATA drive incompatibility common with RAID controllers? Are there some brands of drives that work better than others, or are "validated" against particular RAID controller? I had sort of assumed that all commodity SATA hard drives were alike and would work reasonably well in any given RAID controller (of sufficient quality).

  Read the article

• How to install RAID drivers on already installed Windows 7?

  - by happysencha

  64-bit Windows 7 Ultimate 6GB RAM Intel i7 920 Intel X25-M SSD 80GB 2,5" Club 3D Radeon HD5750 GA-EX58-UD4P Motherboard I've been running fine with Windows 7 installed on the SSD. I wanted to create an mirrored Raid-1 setup for backups using two hard disks, so I ordered two Samsung HD203WI. This motherboard supports two different RAID controllers, the Intel's ICH10R and Gigabyte's SATA2 SATA controller. There are 6 SATA ports behind the ICH10R and 2 SATA ports for the Gigabyte controller. I googled around and seemed that the ICH10R is a better choice and since then I've been trying to make it work. When I activate the [RAID] mode from BIOS, the Windows 7 gives BSOD exactly as described by this guy: "Windows 7 will start to boot, it gets to the screen where there are 4 colors coming together and it blue screens and restarts no matter what I do." First thing I did: turned off the RAID and booted to Windows and tried to install the SATA RAID drivers from Gigabyte. I launch the driver installation program and it gives "This computer does not meet the minimum requirements for installing the software" error. I then tried Intel's Rapid Storage Technology drivers (which apparently is the same as the one offered at Gigabyte's site), but it resulted in exactly the same error. I then detached the new Samsung hard disks from the SATA ports, but left the [RAID] enabled in BIOS. To my surprise, it still BSOD'd, so at this point I knew it is an OS/driver issue. Also, I tried with the Gigabyte's RAID enabled (while the ICH10R RAID disabled) and it booted just fine. So then I thought, that maybe I can't install the RAID drivers from within the OS. So I caused the BSOD on purpose once again, and then with ICH10R RAID activated and Samsung hard disks attached, I choose the Windows 7 Recovery mode in the boot menu. It sees some problem(s), tries to repair, does not succeed and does not ask for drivers (which I put on a USB stick) to install. I also tried to use the command-line in the recovery: "rundll32 syssetup, SetupInfObjectInstallAction DefaultInstall 128 iaStor.inf" but it gave "Installation failed." So I'm clueless how should I proceed. Do I really need to re-install Windows 7 and load RAID drivers in the Win7 setup? I don't want to install any OS on the RAID, the Windows 7 is and will be on the SSD. I just want to have a RAID-1 backup using those two hard disks. I mean why would I need to re-install operating system to add RAID setup?

  Read the article

• Degraded RAID5 and no md superblock on one of remaining drive

  - by ark1214

  This is actually on a QNAP TS-509 NAS. The RAID is basically a Linux RAID. The NAS was configured with RAID 5 with 5 drives (/md0 with /dev/sd[abcde]3). At some point, /dev/sde failed and drive was replaced. While rebuilding (and not completed), the NAS rebooted itself and /dev/sdc dropped out of the array. Now the array can't start because essentially 2 drives have dropped out. I disconnected /dev/sde and hoped that /md0 can resume in degraded mode, but no luck.. Further investigation shows that /dev/sdc3 has no md superblock. The data should be good since the array was unable to assemble after /dev/sdc dropped off. All the searches I done showed how to reassemble the array assuming 1 bad drive. But I think I just need to restore the superblock on /dev/sdc3 and that should bring the array up to a degraded mode which will allow me to backup data and then proceed with rebuilding with adding /dev/sde. Any help would be greatly appreciated. mdstat does not show /dev/md0 # cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : [linear] [raid0] [raid1] [raid10] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [multipath] md5 : active raid1 sdd2[2](S) sdc2[3](S) sdb2[1] sda2[0] 530048 blocks [2/2] [UU] md13 : active raid1 sdd4[3] sdc4[2] sdb4[1] sda4[0] 458880 blocks [5/4] [UUUU_] bitmap: 40/57 pages [160KB], 4KB chunk md9 : active raid1 sdd1[3] sdc1[2] sdb1[1] sda1[0] 530048 blocks [5/4] [UUUU_] bitmap: 33/65 pages [132KB], 4KB chunk mdadm show /dev/md0 is still there # mdadm --examine --scan ARRAY /dev/md9 level=raid1 num-devices=5 UUID=271bf0f7:faf1f2c2:967631a4:3c0fa888 ARRAY /dev/md5 level=raid1 num-devices=2 UUID=0d75de26:0759d153:5524b8ea:86a3ee0d spares=2 ARRAY /dev/md0 level=raid5 num-devices=5 UUID=ce3e369b:4ff9ddd2:3639798a:e3889841 ARRAY /dev/md13 level=raid1 num-devices=5 UUID=7384c159:ea48a152:a1cdc8f2:c8d79a9c With /dev/sde removed, here is the mdadm examine output showing sdc3 has no md superblock # mdadm --examine /dev/sda3 /dev/sda3: Magic : a92b4efc Version : 00.90.00 UUID : ce3e369b:4ff9ddd2:3639798a:e3889841 Creation Time : Sat Dec 8 15:01:19 2012 Raid Level : raid5 Used Dev Size : 1463569600 (1395.77 GiB 1498.70 GB) Array Size : 5854278400 (5583.08 GiB 5994.78 GB) Raid Devices : 5 Total Devices : 4 Preferred Minor : 0 Update Time : Sat Dec 8 15:06:17 2012 State : active Active Devices : 4 Working Devices : 4 Failed Devices : 1 Spare Devices : 0 Checksum : d9e9ff0e - correct Events : 0.394 Layout : left-symmetric Chunk Size : 64K Number Major Minor RaidDevice State this 0 8 3 0 active sync /dev/sda3 0 0 8 3 0 active sync /dev/sda3 1 1 8 19 1 active sync /dev/sdb3 2 2 8 35 2 active sync /dev/sdc3 3 3 8 51 3 active sync /dev/sdd3 4 4 0 0 4 faulty removed [~] # mdadm --examine /dev/sdb3 /dev/sdb3: Magic : a92b4efc Version : 00.90.00 UUID : ce3e369b:4ff9ddd2:3639798a:e3889841 Creation Time : Sat Dec 8 15:01:19 2012 Raid Level : raid5 Used Dev Size : 1463569600 (1395.77 GiB 1498.70 GB) Array Size : 5854278400 (5583.08 GiB 5994.78 GB) Raid Devices : 5 Total Devices : 4 Preferred Minor : 0 Update Time : Sat Dec 8 15:06:17 2012 State : active Active Devices : 4 Working Devices : 4 Failed Devices : 1 Spare Devices : 0 Checksum : d9e9ff20 - correct Events : 0.394 Layout : left-symmetric Chunk Size : 64K Number Major Minor RaidDevice State this 1 8 19 1 active sync /dev/sdb3 0 0 8 3 0 active sync /dev/sda3 1 1 8 19 1 active sync /dev/sdb3 2 2 8 35 2 active sync /dev/sdc3 3 3 8 51 3 active sync /dev/sdd3 4 4 0 0 4 faulty removed [~] # mdadm --examine /dev/sdc3 mdadm: No md superblock detected on /dev/sdc3. [~] # mdadm --examine /dev/sdd3 /dev/sdd3: Magic : a92b4efc Version : 00.90.00 UUID : ce3e369b:4ff9ddd2:3639798a:e3889841 Creation Time : Sat Dec 8 15:01:19 2012 Raid Level : raid5 Used Dev Size : 1463569600 (1395.77 GiB 1498.70 GB) Array Size : 5854278400 (5583.08 GiB 5994.78 GB) Raid Devices : 5 Total Devices : 4 Preferred Minor : 0 Update Time : Sat Dec 8 15:06:17 2012 State : active Active Devices : 4 Working Devices : 4 Failed Devices : 1 Spare Devices : 0 Checksum : d9e9ff44 - correct Events : 0.394 Layout : left-symmetric Chunk Size : 64K Number Major Minor RaidDevice State this 3 8 51 3 active sync /dev/sdd3 0 0 8 3 0 active sync /dev/sda3 1 1 8 19 1 active sync /dev/sdb3 2 2 8 35 2 active sync /dev/sdc3 3 3 8 51 3 active sync /dev/sdd3 4 4 0 0 4 faulty removed fdisk output shows /dev/sdc3 partition is still there. [~] # fdisk -l Disk /dev/sdx: 128 MB, 128057344 bytes 8 heads, 32 sectors/track, 977 cylinders Units = cylinders of 256 * 512 = 131072 bytes Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdx1 1 8 1008 83 Linux /dev/sdx2 9 440 55296 83 Linux /dev/sdx3 441 872 55296 83 Linux /dev/sdx4 873 977 13440 5 Extended /dev/sdx5 873 913 5232 83 Linux /dev/sdx6 914 977 8176 83 Linux Disk /dev/sda: 1500.3 GB, 1500301910016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 182401 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 * 1 66 530113+ 83 Linux /dev/sda2 67 132 530145 82 Linux swap / Solaris /dev/sda3 133 182338 1463569695 83 Linux /dev/sda4 182339 182400 498015 83 Linux Disk /dev/sda4: 469 MB, 469893120 bytes 2 heads, 4 sectors/track, 114720 cylinders Units = cylinders of 8 * 512 = 4096 bytes Disk /dev/sda4 doesn't contain a valid partition table Disk /dev/sdb: 1500.3 GB, 1500301910016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 182401 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdb1 * 1 66 530113+ 83 Linux /dev/sdb2 67 132 530145 82 Linux swap / Solaris /dev/sdb3 133 182338 1463569695 83 Linux /dev/sdb4 182339 182400 498015 83 Linux Disk /dev/sdc: 1500.3 GB, 1500301910016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 182401 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdc1 1 66 530125 83 Linux /dev/sdc2 67 132 530142 83 Linux /dev/sdc3 133 182338 1463569693 83 Linux /dev/sdc4 182339 182400 498012 83 Linux Disk /dev/sdd: 2000.3 GB, 2000398934016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 243201 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdd1 1 66 530125 83 Linux /dev/sdd2 67 132 530142 83 Linux /dev/sdd3 133 243138 1951945693 83 Linux /dev/sdd4 243139 243200 498012 83 Linux Disk /dev/md9: 542 MB, 542769152 bytes 2 heads, 4 sectors/track, 132512 cylinders Units = cylinders of 8 * 512 = 4096 bytes Disk /dev/md9 doesn't contain a valid partition table Disk /dev/md5: 542 MB, 542769152 bytes 2 heads, 4 sectors/track, 132512 cylinders Units = cylinders of 8 * 512 = 4096 bytes Disk /dev/md5 doesn't contain a valid partition table

  Read the article

• 3Ware 9650SE RAID-6, two degraded drives, one ECC, rebuild stuck

  - by cswingle

  This morning I came in the office to discover that two of the drives on a RAID-6, 3ware 9650SE controller were marked as degraded and it was rebuilding the array. After getting to about 4%, it got ECC errors on a third drive (this may have happened when I attempted to access the filesystem on this RAID and got I/O errors from the controller). Now I'm in this state: > /c2/u1 show Unit UnitType Status %RCmpl %V/I/M Port Stripe Size(GB) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ u1 RAID-6 REBUILDING 4%(A) - - 64K 7450.5 u1-0 DISK OK - - p5 - 931.312 u1-1 DISK OK - - p2 - 931.312 u1-2 DISK OK - - p1 - 931.312 u1-3 DISK OK - - p4 - 931.312 u1-4 DISK OK - - p11 - 931.312 u1-5 DISK DEGRADED - - p6 - 931.312 u1-6 DISK OK - - p7 - 931.312 u1-7 DISK DEGRADED - - p3 - 931.312 u1-8 DISK WARNING - - p9 - 931.312 u1-9 DISK OK - - p10 - 931.312 u1/v0 Volume - - - - - 7450.5 Examining the SMART data on the three drives in question, the two that are DEGRADED are in good shape (PASSED without any Current_Pending_Sector or Offline_Uncorrectable errors), but the drive listed as WARNING has 24 uncorrectable sectors. And, the "rebuild" has been stuck at 4% for ten hours now. So: How do I get it to start actually rebuilding? This particular controller doesn't appear to support /c2/u1 resume rebuild, and the only rebuild command that appears to be an option is one that wants to know what disk to add (/c2/u1 start rebuild disk=<p:-p...> [ignoreECC] according to the help). I have two hot spares in the server, and I'm happy to engage them, but I don't understand what it would do with that information in the current state it's in. Can I pull out the drive that is demonstrably failing (the WARNING drive), when I have two DEGRADED drives in a RAID-6? It seems to me that the best scenario would be for me to pull the WARNING drive and tell it to use one of my hot spares in the rebuild. But won't I kill the thing by pulling a "good" drive in a RAID-6 with two DEGRADED drives? Finally, I've seen reference in other posts to a bad bug in this controller that causes good drives to be marked as bad and that upgrading the firmware may help. Is flashing the firmware a risky operation given the situation? Is it likely to help or hurt wrt the rebuilding-but-stuck-at-4% RAID? Am I experiencing this bug in action? Advice outside the spiritual would be much appreciated. Thanks.

  Read the article

• Xenserver 5.5 doesn't see RAID volume

  - by Roy Chan

  Hi Gurus, I am trying to install Xenserver on a Dell precision 490 workstation. After booting into the install wizard and next-ed a few times, On the disk step, it only shows physical harddrive but not the RAID (RAID-10) volume that I set up on the Dell RAID. Is there a special option that I have to set on the boot? or do I need a special driver for this? Please Advise Thanks

  Read the article

• RAID options for a LAMP web server

  - by jetboy

  I'm due to set up a LAMP web server with four drives and a RAID controller to act as a web server. The drives are 146Gb SAS, and the machine has two quad core processors and 16Gb RAM. There will be very few write operations to the MySQL database, and I'll be using as much caching as possible to reduce disk I/O. Question is: Would I be better off splitting the drives into two RAID 1 arrays, splitting up sequential and random disk I/O, or would I get better overall performance putting them all in a single RAID 1+0 array?

  Read the article

• Windows 7 won't boot from raid-1 disks until secondary non-bootable disks are removed

  - by PaulP

  I have an ASUS X58 motherboard with a Intel ICH10R southbridge raid controller. Bootable raid-1 SATA disks are on channels 4, 5. Secondary raid-1 SATA disks are on channels 0,1. Everything was working OK until one time I removed the secondary disks and booted successfully but after I shut down and reinstalled the secondary disks rebooting fails with a "Please insert proper boot item" error. If I remove the secondary disks and reboot then do a hot-install of the disks after booting completes, then all is OK. Do I have a raid setup problem or is it something I can fix with Disk Manager.

  Read the article

• Which is faster? 4x10k SAS Drives in RAID 10 or 3x15k SAS Drives in RAID 5?

  - by Jenkz

  I am reviewing quote for a server upgrade. (RHEL). The server will have both Apache and MySQL on it, but the reason for upgrade is to increase DB performance. CPU has been upgraded massively, but I know that disk speed is also a factor. So RAID 10 is faster performance than RAID 5, but how much difference does the drive speed make? (The 15k discs in the RAID 5 config is at the top of my budget btw, hence not considdering 4x15k discs in RAID 10, which I assume would be the optimum.)

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  | Next Page >