Search Results

Search found 139 results on 6 pages for 'raid10'.

Page 1/6 | 1 2 3 4 5 6  | Next Page >

• Can't re-mount existing RAID10 on Ubuntu

  - by Zoran

  I saw similar questions, but didn't find what solution to my problem. After power-cut, one of RAID10 (4 disks were) appears to be malfunctioning. I make tha array active one, but can not mount it. Always the same error: mount: you must specify the filesystem type So, here is what I have when type mdadm --detail /dev/md0 /dev/md0: Version : 00.90.03 Creation Time : Tue Sep 1 11:00:40 2009 Raid Level : raid10 Array Size : 1465148928 (1397.27 GiB 1500.31 GB) Used Dev Size : 732574464 (698.64 GiB 750.16 GB) Raid Devices : 4 Total Devices : 3 Preferred Minor : 0 Persistence : Superblock is persistent Update Time : Mon Jun 11 09:54:27 2012 State : clean, degraded Active Devices : 3 Working Devices : 3 Failed Devices : 0 Spare Devices : 0 Layout : near=2, far=1 Chunk Size : 64K UUID : 1a02e789:c34377a1:2e29483d:f114274d Events : 0.166 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State 0 8 16 0 active sync /dev/sdb 1 0 0 1 removed 2 8 48 2 active sync /dev/sdd 3 8 64 3 active sync /dev/sde At the /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf I have by default, scan all partitions (/proc/partitions) for MD superblocks. alternatively, specify devices to scan, using wildcards if desired. DEVICE partitions auto-create devices with Debian standard permissions CREATE owner=root group=disk mode=0660 auto=yes automatically tag new arrays as belonging to the local system HOMEHOST <system> instruct the monitoring daemon where to send mail alerts MAILADDR root definitions of existing MD arrays ARRAY /dev/md0 level=raid10 num-devices=4 UUID=1a02e789:c34377a1:2e29483d:f114274d ARRAY /dev/md1 level=raid1 num-devices=2 UUID=9b592be7:c6a2052f:2e29483d:f114274d This file was auto-generated... So, my question is, how can I mount md0 array (md1 has been mounted without problem) in order to preserve existing data? One more thing, fdisk -l command gives the following result: Disk /dev/sdb: 750.1 GB, 750156374016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 91201 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Disk identifier: 0x660a6799 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdb1 * 1 88217 708603021 83 Linux /dev/sdb2 88218 91201 23968980 5 Extended /dev/sdb5 88218 91201 23968948+ 82 Linux swap / Solaris Disk /dev/sdc: 750.1 GB, 750156374016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 91201 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Disk identifier: 0x0008f8ae Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdc1 1 88217 708603021 83 Linux /dev/sdc2 88218 91201 23968980 5 Extended /dev/sdc5 88218 91201 23968948+ 82 Linux swap / Solaris Disk /dev/sdd: 750.1 GB, 750156374016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 91201 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Disk identifier: 0x4be1abdb Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System Disk /dev/sde: 750.1 GB, 750156374016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 91201 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Disk identifier: 0xa4d5632e Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System Disk /dev/sdf: 750.1 GB, 750156374016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 91201 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Disk identifier: 0xdacb141c Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System Disk /dev/sdg: 750.1 GB, 750156374016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 91201 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Disk identifier: 0xdacb141c Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System Disk /dev/md1: 750.1 GB, 750156251136 bytes 2 heads, 4 sectors/track, 183143616 cylinders Units = cylinders of 8 * 512 = 4096 bytes Disk identifier: 0xdacb141c Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System Warning: ignoring extra data in partition table 5 Warning: ignoring extra data in partition table 5 Warning: ignoring extra data in partition table 5 Warning: invalid flag 0x7b6e of partition table 5 will be corrected by w(rite) Disk /dev/md0: 1500.3 GB, 1500312502272 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 182402 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Disk identifier: 0x660a6799 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/md0p1 * 1 88217 708603021 83 Linux /dev/md0p2 88218 91201 23968980 5 Extended /dev/md0p5 ? 121767 155317 269488144 20 Unknown And one more thing. When using mdadm --examine command, here ise result: mdadm -v --examine --scan /dev/sdb /dev/sdc /dev/sdd /dev/sde /dev/sdf /dev/sd ARRAY /dev/md1 level=raid1 num-devices=2 UUID=9b592be7:c6a2052f:2e29483d:f114274d devices=/dev/sdf ARRAY /dev/md0 level=raid10 num-devices=4 UUID=1a02e789:c34377a1:2e29483d:f114274d devices=/dev/sdb,/dev/sdc,/dev/sdd,/dev/sde md0 has 3 devices which are active. Can someone instruct me how to solve this issue? If it is possible, I would like not to removing faulty HDD. Please advise

  Read the article

• EBS+RAID10+XFS slower than EBS+RAID10+EXT3 using MySQL?

  - by Johann Tagle

  We're currently using EC2 with 16 EBS volumes in RAID10 configuration for our MySQL data. I know some people don't recommend to put EBS volumes to RAID but that's not what I'm concerned about at the moment. Current format is ext3, but we're experimenting with moving to xfs, given many reports that it is faster. However, we're actually experiencing a performance degradation when the partition was converted to xfs - a benchmark run with inserts, updates, selects and deletes was more than 10 seconds slower using xfs. Any idea what could be the problem? Below is the fstab entry (really only changed ext3 to xfs). Database tables are innodb and we are using innodb_file_per_table. /dev/mapper/vg_data-lv_data /data xfs noatime 0 0 Thanks.

  Read the article

• RAID10 Without BBU, With UPS

  - by Richard

  My datacenter says that each rack has primary and backup power on each rack. I assume this means there is a UPS for each server. Therefore, do I have any need of getting a BBU for the following setup? Intel Cherry 520 SSD x 4 RAID 10 LSI-9260 with WRITEBACK CACHE ENABLED I have heard that without a BBU the data in the cache could be lost. Since my needs aren't mission-critical, I can afford to lose some data. But would the rest of the data on the HD be corrupted?

  Read the article

• lvm disappeared after disc replacement on raid10

  - by user142295

  here my problem: I am running ubuntu 12.04 on a raid10 (4 disks), on top of which I installed an lvm with two volume groups (one for /, one for /home). The layout of the disks are as follows: Disk /dev/sda: 1500.3 GB, 1500301910016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 182401 cylinders, total 2930277168 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: 0x0003f3b6 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 * 63 481949 240943+ 83 Linux /dev/sda2 481950 2910640634 1455079342+ fd Linux raid autodetect /dev/sda3 2910640635 2930272064 9815715 82 Linux swap / Solaris Disk /dev/sdb: 1500.3 GB, 1500301910016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 182401 cylinders, total 2930277168 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: 0x00069785 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdb1 63 2910158684 1455079311 fd Linux raid autodetect /dev/sdb2 2910158685 2930272064 10056690 82 Linux swap / Solaris Disk /dev/sdc: 1500.3 GB, 1500301910016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 182401 cylinders, total 2930277168 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 2910158684 1455079311 fd Linux raid autodetect /dev/sdc2 2910158685 2930272064 10056690 82 Linux swap / Solaris Disk /dev/sdd: 1500.3 GB, 1500301910016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 182401 cylinders, total 2930277168 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: 0x000f14de Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdd1 63 2910158684 1455079311 fd Linux raid autodetect /dev/sdd2 2910158685 2930272064 10056690 82 Linux swap / Solaris The first disk (/dev/sda) contains the /boot partition on /dev/sda1. I use grub2 to boot the system off this partition. On top of this raid10 I installed two volume groups, one for /, one for /home. This system worked well, I even exchanged two disks during the last two years. It always worked. But not this time. For the first time, /dev/sda broke. I do not know if this is an issue – I know I would have struggled anyways to overcome the problem with /boot installed on that disk and grub2 installed on the mbr of /dev/sda. Anyways, I did what I always did: start knoppix fire up the raid sudo mdadm --examine -scan which returns ARRAY /dev/md127 UUID=0dbf4558:1a943464:132783e8:19cdff95 start it up sudo mdadm --assemble /dev/md127 fail the failing disk (smart event) sudo mdadm /dev/md127 --fail /dev/sda2 remove the failing disk sudo mdadm /dev/md127 --remove /dev/sda2 stop the raid sudo mdadm -S /dev/md127 take out the disk replace it with a new one create the same partitions as on the failling one add it to the raid sudo mdadm --assemble /dev/md127 sudo mdadm /dev/md127 --add /dev/sda2 wait 4 hours All looks fine: cat /proc/mdstat returns: Personalities : [raid10] md127 : active raid10 sda2[0] sdd1[3] sdc1[2] sdb1[1] 2910158464 blocks 64K chunks 2 near-copies [4/4] [UUUU] unused devices: <none> and sudo mdadm --detail /dev/md127 returns /dev/md127: Version : 0.90 Creation Time : Wed Jun 10 13:08:46 2009 Raid Level : raid10 Array Size : 2910158464 (2775.34 GiB 2980.00 GB) Used Dev Size : 1455079232 (1387.67 GiB 1490.00 GB) Raid Devices : 4 Total Devices : 4 Preferred Minor : 127 Persistence : Superblock is persistent Update Time : Thu Mar 21 16:27:40 2013 State : clean Active Devices : 4 Working Devices : 4 Failed Devices : 0 Spare Devices : 0 Layout : near=2 Chunk Size : 64K UUID : 0dbf4558:1a943464:132783e8:19cdff95 (local to host Microknoppix) Events : 0.4824680 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State 0 8 2 0 active sync /dev/sda2 1 8 17 1 active sync /dev/sdb1 2 8 33 2 active sync /dev/sdc1 3 8 49 3 active sync /dev/sdd1 However, there is no trace of the volume groups. Rebooting into knoppix does not help Restarting the old system (I actually replugged and re-added the failing disk for that – the system begins to start, but then fails to see the / partition – no wonder if the volume group is gone) does not help. sudo vgscan, sudo vgdisplay, sudo lvs, sudo lvdisplay, sudo vgscan –mknodes all returned No volume groups found. I am completely at a loss. Can anyone tell me if and how I can recover my data? Thanks in advance!

  Read the article

• Converting software RAID1 to RAID10 for /boot

  - by luckytaxi

  Array info: /dev/md0 - /dev/sda1 and /dev/sdb1 /dev/md2 - /dev/sda2 and /dev/sdb2 Partition info: /boot - /dev/md0 / - /dev/md1 I have two drives that are setup as RAID1 using software RAID on Redhat. I added two additional drives (same size) and I would like to conver the RAID1 to a RAID10. The problem I'm having is adding the last drive to the array. I've gotten as far as creating a RAID10 with two missing devices but as soon as I add the last drive, all hell breaks loose. It seems /dev/sda1 is the culprit. What I'm not too sure about is how to create the RAID10. I've tried the following mdadm --create /dev/md2 --level=raid10 --raid-device=4 /dev/sdc1 missing /dev/sdd1 missing I then proceeded to fail /dev/sdb1 from /dev/md0 and added that partition to /dev/md2. I proceeded to install the MBR on EACH partition since boot resides on /dev/sdx1 on each drive. As a test, all is well, I'm able to boot back into the system once I do a quick reboot. Now, when I go add the last drive /dev/sda1, it breaks. I attempted to install grub on /dev/sda1 and I get the following ... grub> root (hd0,0) /dev/sda root (hd0,0) /dev/sda Filesystem type is ext2fs, partition type 0xfd grub> setup (hd0) setup (hd0) Checking if "/boot/grub/stage1" exists... no Checking if "/grub/stage1" exists... no Error 2: Bad file or directory type At this point, the array is hosed I believe. I rebooted the server and it refuses to boot.

  Read the article

• 4096 and 8192 block size read slower than write? by using lsi 9361-8i RAID10

  - by Min Hong Tan

  is it possible that 1024 and 2048 block size read speed is faster than 4096 and 8192 block? I'm using lsi 9361-8i with RAID 10 , with 8 x Kingston E50 250G. result: 1024 = Write: 2,251 MB/s Read: 2,625 MB/s 2048 = Write: 2,141 MB/s Read: 3,672 MB/s 4096 = Write: 2,147 MB/s Read: 231 MB/s 8192 = Write: 2,147 MB/s Read: 442 MB/s is there any possible? and below is the reading when i simply want to test out the RAID 10 function and disaster test by taking out one of the 250G harddisk. the result is different like below: Result: 1024 = Write: 825 MB/s Read: 1,139 MB/s 2048 = Write: 797 MB/s Read: 1,312 MB/s 4096 = Write: 911 MB/s Read: 1,342 MB/s 8192 = Write: 786 MB/s Read: 1,204 MB/s and the result for 4096 and 8192block are different? can any one explain to me is it normal? or I need to do some tuning/configuration? will it affect my host linux performance?

  Read the article

• What does the the reconstruction process of mdadm do exactly on raid10

  - by Azrael

  I've got a system with 4 disks set up as raid10. All disks are usable, and mdadm all states them with UUUU. Due to a recent system crash, the raid is currently reconstruction the raid as it was marked as "not clean," and a reconstruction process was started. On a closer look smartctl shows problems on one disk: sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Unhandled sense code sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Result: hostbyte=DID_OK driverbyte=DRIVER_SENSE sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Sense Key : Medium Error [current] [descriptor] Descriptor sense data with sense descriptors (in hex): 72 03 11 04 00 00 00 0c 00 0a 80 00 00 00 00 00 24 cd 78 d4 sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Add. Sense: Unrecovered read error - auto reallocate failed sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] CDB: Read(10): 28 00 24 cd 75 1e 00 04 00 00 With a research about the reconstruction process, I only found information concerning raid5 but nothing for raid10. Can I replace this problematic disk during the reconstruction process, or will I kill the raid with this?

  Read the article

• explain md's raid10,f2

  - by xenoterracide

  I know how most of the various RAID's work. But I stumbled on the recommended raid10,f2 mode while researching linux software raid. I don't really understand how it works on 2 or 3 disks. could someone explain it to me? or point me to a really good article that explains it?

  Read the article

• RAID10 without write-back cache = horrible write performance?

  - by Harry Mexican

  I have just provisioned a dedicated server on singlehop. I'm running it through some tests to know what to expect performance-wise. On the I/O side (with 4 1TB disks in RAID 10) I get: write-cache disabled 200 MB/s read throughput 30 MB/s write throughput I thought that was really low compared to my desktop HD which gets 150-150 or so. So I had a chat with them and they suggested enabling the write cache. New results: write-cache enabled 280 MB/s read 260 MB/s write which is great and all but means I'd have to add a BBU for an additional monthly cost. Is it normal for the write throughput to be 1/4 of a regular drive on RAID10, if you don't have write cache? It almost feels like its intentionally bad to force you to pony up for the BBU. I'd be happy with normal non-raid performance of 150/150.

  Read the article

• Windows Server 2008 RAID10

  - by JT

  Hello All, I am building a storage system for myself. I have a 16 bay SATA chasis and right now I have 1 x 500GB SATA for booting 8 x 1.5TB for data. 3Ware 9500S-8 RAID card where these 8 drives above are connected to. I am used to linux, but not in the RAID department. I have Windows experience too. What I am looking for is something that I can just let sit, be reliable and use for other items as well. (Like running test websites, Apache, MySQL, etc). This box is private on a Class-C subnet. My thought is to at least consider Windows Server 2008. I especially like the potential for NON-GUI Mode. Can Windows Server 2008 do a Software RAID 10 out of the box? Software RAID is better performance and better in case the raid needs to be moved to another machine? I just want to SCP files, so OpenSSH running on it? Can one install the GUI, but not use it unless they get in a bind? Is Windows a good idea or should I stick to a Linux Software RAID or FreeBSD + ZFS?

  Read the article

• How to re-add a RAID-10 failed drive on Ubuntu?

  - by thiesdiggity

  I have a problem that I can't seem to solve. We have a Ubuntu server setup with RAID-10 and two of the drives dropped out of the array. When I try to re-add them using the following command: mdadm --manage --re-add /dev/md2 /dev/sdc1 I get the following error message: mdadm: Cannot open /dev/sdc1: Device or resource busy When I do a "cat /proc/mdstat" I get the following: Personalities : [linear] [multipath] [raid0] [raid1] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [r$ md2 : active raid10 sdb1[0] sdd1[3] 1953519872 blocks 64K chunks 2 near-copies [4/2] [U__U] md1 : active raid1 sda2[0] sdc2[1] 468853696 blocks [2/2] [UU] md0 : active raid1 sda1[0] sdc1[1] 19530688 blocks [2/2] [UU] unused devices: <none> When I run "/sbin/mdadm --detail /dev/md2" I get the following: /dev/md2: Version : 00.90 Creation Time : Mon Sep 5 23:41:13 2011 Raid Level : raid10 Array Size : 1953519872 (1863.02 GiB 2000.40 GB) Used Dev Size : 976759936 (931.51 GiB 1000.20 GB) Raid Devices : 4 Total Devices : 2 Preferred Minor : 2 Persistence : Superblock is persistent Update Time : Thu Oct 25 09:25:08 2012 State : active, degraded Active Devices : 2 Working Devices : 2 Failed Devices : 0 Spare Devices : 0 Layout : near=2, far=1 Chunk Size : 64K UUID : c6d87d27:aeefcb2e:d4453e2e:0b7266cb Events : 0.6688691 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State 0 8 17 0 active sync /dev/sdb1 1 0 0 1 removed 2 0 0 2 removed 3 8 49 3 active sync /dev/sdd1 Output of df -h is: Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/md1 441G 2.0G 416G 1% / none 32G 236K 32G 1% /dev tmpfs 32G 0 32G 0% /dev/shm none 32G 112K 32G 1% /var/run none 32G 0 32G 0% /var/lock none 32G 0 32G 0% /lib/init/rw tmpfs 64G 215M 63G 1% /mnt/vmware none 441G 2.0G 416G 1% /var/lib/ureadahead/debugfs /dev/mapper/RAID10VG-RAID10LV 1.8T 139G 1.6T 8% /mnt/RAID10 When I do a "fdisk -l" I can see all the drives needed for the RAID-10. The RAID-10 is part of the /dev/mapper, could that be the reason why the device is coming back as busy? Anyone have any suggestions on what I can try to get the drives back into the array? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

  Read the article

• How to display/define Mirror/Stripping pairs with mdadm

  - by Chris

  I want to make a standard linux software Raid10 over 4 HDD. The server has 4HDDs, 2 pairs from different vendors in order to avoid batch problems. I want to have the mirror over two different Vendors, and then the Stripe over the mirror pairs. I could do that by manually creating Raid1/0, but mdadm supports Raid level 10. I just cant figure out how the Raid10 is then handled and how the data is distributed. mdadm --detail /dev/md10 /dev/md10: Version : 1.2 Creation Time : Wed May 28 11:06:23 2014 Raid Level : raid10 Array Size : 1953260544 (1862.77 GiB 2000.14 GB) Used Dev Size : 976630272 (931.39 GiB 1000.07 GB) Raid Devices : 4 Total Devices : 4 Persistence : Superblock is persistent Update Time : Wed May 28 11:06:23 2014 State : clean, resyncing (PENDING) Active Devices : 4 Working Devices : 4 Failed Devices : 0 Spare Devices : 0 Layout : near=2 Chunk Size : 512K Name : pdwhost:10 (local to host pdwhost) UUID : a3de0ad5:9e694ee1:addc6786:c4449e40 Events : 0 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State 0 8 1 0 active sync /dev/sda1 1 8 81 1 active sync /dev/sdf1 2 8 97 2 active sync /dev/sdg1 3 8 113 3 active sync /dev/sdh1 does not really give any information about that. How it should be: Raid 1 / Mirror over /dev/sda1 /dev/sdf1 and /dev/sdg1 /dev/sdh1 Raid 0 over the two Raid 1 pairs Is it possible to do that with the built in "level=10", how can I see what pairs are mirrored? Thanks a lot for you help

  Read the article

• How to create Raid 10 with megacli

  - by Henno

  I have OpenFiler storage server. Without installing Windows and MSM, I want to create raid10 array from disks 2 to 21. I have already successfully installed MegaCli to OpenFiler but I'm stuck in figuring out the correct command line for creating a raid 10 array. The documentations says that the syntax for creating a raid 10 is: MegaCli -CfgSpanAdd -r10 -Array0[E:S,E:S] -Array1[E:S,E:S] -aN My enclosure ID is 25, so: [root@linux-h5ut ~]# MegaCli -CfgSpanAdd -r10 -Array0[E25:S02,E25:S21] -Array1[E25:S02,E25:S21] WB Cached NoCachedBadBBU -a0 Invalid input at or near token E I have googled high and low but there doesn't seem to be any example doing raid10 with megaraid (only the syntax). Can anyone explain what is wrong?

  Read the article

• large RAID 10 vs small RAID1

  - by user116399

  The machine will store and serve millions of small files (<15Kb each), and all those files require a total storage space of 400G Considering the exact same SATA hard drives maker and models, on the exact same environment (OS, cpu, ram, raid controller, etc...) which one of the setups bellow would be faster? A) RAID 1 with 2 drives of 2T each, making up total storage of 2T B) RAID 10 with 4 drives of 2T each, making up total storage of 4T [EDIT]: I'm aware RAID10 is faster than RAID1. The larger the disk, at least in theory, the longer will take to do seeks/writes. So, will the performance gain of RAID10 will be outweighed by the "drag" caused the larger disk area when seek/write operations happened?

  Read the article

• Using Linux LVM, can I change the number of stripes and "rebalance" the logical volume?

  - by mss

  I created a RAID10 by adding two RAID1 md devices as physical volumes to a volume group. Unfortunately it looks like I forgot to specify the number of stripes when I created the logical volumes (it was late): PV VG Fmt Attr PSize PFree /dev/md312 volume lvm2 a- 927.01G 291.01G /dev/md334 volume lvm2 a- 927.01G 927.01G I know that I can move all the data of a logical volume from one physical volume to another with pvmove. It also looks like lvextend supports an -i switch to change the number of stripes. Is there any way to combine these two, ie. change the number of stripes and "rebalance" the data over the stripes based on the allocation policy? According to this mail by Ross Walker from March 2010 it isn't possible but maybe this has changed since then.

  Read the article

• How to (hardware) RAID 10 on Ubuntu 10.04 LTS with 4 drives and motherboard with RAID contoller

  - by lollercoaster

  I have 4 500GB hard drives. I set up a RAID 10 in BIOS, much like shown here: http://www.supermicro.com/manuals/other/RAID_SATA_ESB2.pdf Then I followed these instructions: http://www.unrest.ca/Knowledge-Base/configuring-mdadm-raid10-for-ubuntu-910 Basically I cannot get it to work. I go through the instructions when I get to the "partition" section of the install, creating 4 RAID 1's (2 partitions on each drive, one for primary and one for swap space), then combining to make a RAID 10. Unfortunately it still shows 2 partitions, one 500 GB and another being 36GB for some reason. Any ideas? I think best would be if anyone had found good instructions (step by step) for how to do this...I've been googling for hours and haven't found anything...

  Read the article

• HP DL180 G6 P410 8x SATA 1TB, what is the optimal configuration?

  - by Oneiroi

  I have a HP DL180 G6 with a P410 raid controller. Presently this runs using 4x 1TB Samsung Spinpoint SATA drives, in a RAID10 configuration using default settings. I am about to add a backplane to increase the drive capacity from 4 to 12 drives, and I plan to install 4 more 1TB SATA Drives. The drives are matched and have close serial numbers (They arrived together in the Manufacturers pallet). Model HD103UJ 1000GB/7200rpm/32M Rated for 3GB/s I will also be installing RHEL 6.1 x86_64. My question is what would be the optimal RAID settings (stripe etc.) for this configuration? To recap: 8x Model HD103UJ 1000GB/7200rpm/32M Rated for 3GB/s RAID 10 configuration. Thanks in advance. Update for role: Server is to become an iscsi target for an internal openstack deployment currently underway. (Glance) Will also provide virtualisation through KVM

  Read the article

• perfmon reporting higher IOPs than possible?

  - by BlueToast

  We created a monitoring report for IOPs on performance counters using Disk reads/sec and Disk writes/sec on four servers (physical boxes, no virtualization) that have 4x 15k 146GB SAS drives in RAID10 per server, set to check and record data every 1 second, and logged for 24 hours before stopping reports. These are the results we got: Server1 Maximum disk reads/sec: 4249.437 Maximum disk writes/sec: 4178.946 Server2 Maximum disk reads/sec: 2550.140 Maximum disk writes/sec: 5177.821 Server3 Maximum disk reads/sec: 1903.300 Maximum disk writes/sec: 5299.036 Server4 Maximum disk reads/sec: 8453.572 Maximum disk writes/sec: 11584.653 The average disk reads and writes per second were generally low. I.e. for one particular server it was like average 33 writes/sec, but when monitoring in real-time it would often spike up to several hundreds and also sometimes into the thousands. Could someone explain to me why these numbers are significantly higher than theoretical calculations assuming each drive can do 180 IOPs? Additional details (RAID card): HP Smart Array P410i, Total cache size of 1GB, Write cache is disabled, Array accelerator cache ratio is 25% read and 75% write

  Read the article

• does the *physical* order/location of drives in a mdadm-managed RAID-10 array matter?

  - by locuse

  i've setup a 4-drive RAID-10 array using mdadm-managed, software-raid on an x86_64 box. it'd up & running and works as expected, cat /proc/mdstat md127 : active raid10 sdc2[2] sdd2[3] sda2[0] sdb2[1] 1951397888 blocks super 1.2 512K chunks 2 far-copies [4/4] [UUUU] bitmap: 9/466 pages [36KB], 2048KB chunk atm the four SATA drives are physically plugged into the motherboard's 1st four SATA ports. i'd like to gather the necessary/complete info for catastrophic recovery. reading starting here, http://neil.brown.name/blog, and the mailing list, i'm not yet completely confident i have it right. i understand 'drive order matters'. is that logical, &/or physical order that matters? if i unplugged the four drives in this array, and plugged them each back into different ports on the motherboard or a pci card, as long as i've changed nothing in software config, will the array correctly auto-re-assemble?

  Read the article

• What RAID level for a backup server?

  - by ispirto

  I'm building a server with 12 x 3TB disks to use daily backups. I'm thinking to use RAID50 to get a good 27TB usable space. The disks will be used brutally to backup 9 servers with 1.5TB of data once a day. I'll keep the backups for 2 days. So for each server I'll have 3TB of separate partitions. Do you think this kind of huge backups would stress the disks too much and make them fail? Should I better go with RAID10? Oktay

  Read the article

• X58 RAID 10 - Am I forced to use Sata2?

  - by Avi

  I'm building a new dev computer. It will be running a few VMWare Worksation virtual machines. I was advised on Serverfault to use Raid10 for performance. Raid 10 uses 4 disks. I contacted my supplier who suggested a gigabyte X58A motherboard and 4 Western Digital Caviar black 6Gb/s disks. I have checked the spec for the X58A board, however, and it says: SATA 3Gb/s: RAID 0, RAID 1, RAID 5, and RAID 10 SATA 6Gb/s: RAID 0, and RAID 1. I'm losing half the bandwidth because I'm forced to use SATA2! What should I do?

  Read the article

• FreeBSD 9 (amd64) reboot/shutdown process is very slow

  - by nbari

  I have a Dell Poweredge 2900 III with FreeBSD 9 (amd64), the server uses mfi wich handles a raid10, I had to reboot the server, but notice that either when rebooting or shutting down the server, something is going wrong, besides taking to much time to reboot/shutdown, after rebooting I notice that that some ldap instances within some jails could'nt start and this was because the database was corrupted. This make me think that probably something was wrong with the disks or mfi card, but checking the disk array / logs everything seems to be working fine. My set up is something like this: Host server has the minimum base of FreeBSD 9 amd64, within I create some jails, the ones contain services like mysql, email, and some others ldap. With FreeBSD 7 and 8 I didn't notice this behavior but with FreeBSD 9 something is not working well. I did a clean installation of FreeBSD 9 and root filesystem is using ZFS. Attached is an image hoping some one can give me a hint of what to check or any kind of advice. reboot capture screen image

  Read the article

• Suggestions for splitting server roles amongst Hyper-V virtual servers / RAID6 or RAID10? / AppAssure

  - by Anon

  We have 2 Hyper-V hosts at present running 1 virtual server that was converted from a physical box running all roles. My plan is to split the roles over various virtual machines, upgrading to the latest software versions as I go, and use the backup server as a standby in case the main server fails. AppAssure backup software has a feature called Virtual Standby, so the VHD's can be ready to be fired up on the backup server if necessary. Off-site backups will be done via external USB drive for now. I'm just seeking some input/suggestions into how I'm planning to split the roles out amongst various virtual servers. Also, I'm curious how to setup the storage on the servers. We do not have any NAS's, SAN'S or any budget for this. What would the best RAID level be to use? I'm thinking either RAID6 (which is currently used) however I'm concerned about the write speeds, or RAID10 but again I'm worried that I can only lose 1 drive (from the same mirror) as opposed to any 2 with RAID6. I realise I have a hot swap for this, but what if a further drive fails during a rebuild? Is the write penalty of RAID6 worth the extra reliability over RAID10? Or will it be too slow with all the roles I am planning, therefore RAID10 is my only real option? The reason for the needed redundancy is I am the only technician and I'm not always on-site. Options I've considered: 1) 5 drives in RAID6 set, 200gb for host OS, rest for VM storage. 1 drive for hot swap - this is how it is currently setup 2) 4 drives in RAID10 set, 200gb for host OS, rest for VM storage. 2 drives for hot swap 3) 4 drives in RAID10 set for VM storage, 2 drives in RAID1 set for host OS. No drives for hot swap - While this is probably the best option with the amount of drives I have, I don't like the idea of having no hot swap 4) 3 drives in RAID6 set for VM storage, 2 drives in RAID1 set for host OS. 1 drive for hot swap All options give us enough storage capacity for our files, etc. We don't have any budget for extra drives or extra hot swap HD chassis for the servers. We have about 70 clients and about 150 users. MAIN SERVER Intel Xeon 5520 @ 2.27 GHz (2 processors) 16GB RAM 6 x 1TB Seagate Barracuda ES.2 Enterprise SATA drives Intel SRCSATAWB RAID controller Virtual machine workload using Hyper-V on Windows Server 2008 R2: DC01 - Active Directory Domain Controller / DNS server / Global catalog - 1GB RAM DC02 - Active Directory Domain Controller / DNS server / Global catalog - 1GB RAM Member Server - DHCP server, File server, Print server - 1GB RAM SCCM Member Server - 4GB RAM Third Party Software Member Server - A/V server, Ticketing software, etc - 4GB RAM Exchange 2007 - 4GB RAM - however we are probably migrating to a hosted solution, therefore freeing up resources BACKUP SERVER Intel Xeon E5410 @ 2.33GHz (2 processors) 16GB RAM 6 x 2TB WD RE4 SATA drives Intel SRCSASRB RAID controller Virtual machine workload using Hyper-V on Windows Server 2008 R2: AppAssure backup software - 8GB RAM

  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

• Software Raid 10 corrupted superblock after dual disk failure, how do I recover it?

  - 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, even if I assemble manually with all the device names. 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 All 6 disks have the same layout, partition #1 is for raid 1 /boot, partition #2 is for raid 10 far plan, partition #3 is swap, but sda did not have swap enabled EDIT2: This is the output of mdadm --detail /dev/md1 Layout : near=1, far=2 Chunk Size : 64k UUID : a0feff55:2018f8ff:e368bf24:bd0fce41 Events : 0.3112126 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State 0 8 34 0 spare rebuilding /dev/sdc2 1 0 0 1 removed 2 8 18 2 active sync /dev/sdb2 3 8 50 3 active sync /dev/sdd2 4 0 0 4 removed 5 8 82 5 active sync /dev/sdf2 6 8 66 - spare /dev/sde2 EDIT3: I ran ddrescue and it has copied everything from sda except a single 4096 byte sector that I suspect is the raid superblock EDIT4: Here is some more info too long to fit here lshw: http://pastebin.com/2eKrh7nF mdadm --detail /dev/sd[abcdef]1 (raid1): http://pastebin.com/cgMQWerS mdadm --detail /dev/sd[abcdef]2 (raid10): http://pastebin.com/V5dtcGPF dumpe2fs of /dev/sda2 (from the ddrescue cloned drive): http://pastebin.com/sp0GYcJG I tried to recreate md1 based on this info with the command mdadm --create /dev/md1 -v --assume-clean --level=10 --raid-devices=6 --chunk=64K --layout=f2 /dev/sda2 missing /dev/sdc2 /dev/sdd2 missing /dev/sdf2 But I can't mount it, I also tried to recreate it based on my initial mdadm --detail /dev/md1 but it still doesn't mount It also warns me that /dev/sda2 is an ext2fs file system but I guess its because of ddrescue

  Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6  | Next Page >