From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: Greck Cannon Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 21:16:05 -0500 Message-ID: <20010126211605.A19952@unpunk.com> References: <20010126144047.A16544@unpunk.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ; from cdw22@hermes.cam.ac.uk on Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 09:13:08PM +0000 Subject: [linux-lvm] Re: Keeping swap in the middle of the disk Sender: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Errors-To: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Reply-To: linux-lvm@sistina.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-lvm@sistina.com Cc: cdw22@hermes.cam.ac.uk On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 09:13:08PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: | | Hi Greck, | | Where does this live? Kernel 2.4 is nowhere near stable on my SMP system | (ethernet lasts a few hours before it gives up on IRQ's). There appears to | be an alpha patch for 2.2.17 at | http://people.redhat.com/mingo/raid-patches/ and the kernel.org | pub/linux/daemons/raid/alpha is old too - neither will patch a clean | 2.2.18 distribution. Yeah, the old software RAID code in stock 2.2 is fairly evil... here's a link to the announcement from mingo about a RAID 0.90 patch against 2.2.18: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-raid&m=97932083031328&w=2 [aside] I really like the mailing list archives here. | | Let me know whether you have any success with that! If LVM is happy with | /dev/md0 as a PV then that might be the best solution for me (I could | probably do it all with MD but I like the idea of being able to add | another couple of disks down the line and add them to the same | mega-filesystem :) Course I'd have to get MD working first - what's wrong | with the MD that's included in 2.2.18? I've seen mention of 'nasties' and | 'bugs' but no specifics. I'll keep you posted... there's no reason I should have any issues with it. I've actually had LVM + RAID 0.90 up and running several times on other machines, but have inevitably run into one of the various problems that ends in a panic, so I'm taking a vacation. As far as "nasties" in the old RAID code, I think mostly it's just that: OLD. RAID 0.90 has been out for a very long time now. Not exactly sure why it hasn't been rolled into 2.2 yet, although I'm sure the linux-kernel archives hold the answer. --greck -- to be bored, visit http://unpunk.com/~greck/ ---------------------------