From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: berk walker Subject: Re: Fwd: RAID5 on different sized disks on low-end machine Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:20:12 -0500 Message-ID: <41E853AC.4050007@verizon.net> References: <41E78C6C.2080701@chemie.uni-erlangen.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Derek Piper Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids If you have an AGP slot, dump the pci vga, eh? b- Derek Piper wrote: >Hi all, > >Yes, I did notice that I would be doing the master/slave thing and >went and read to the FAQ about it (omg! he reads?!). I actually set up >(well, am in the process of setting up) the machine to use it's older >ATA33 ports of hda and hdc. I was going to post my revision of idea to >the list but forgot. Thanks for responding to it though! :) > >I would get another promise card, but since I need two NICs in this >machine (Dual PPro W6LI board) and the VGA card (PCI), all PCI slots >are used. > >I went with this layout in the end: > >/dev/hde,/dev/hdg,/dev/hdc = 60000MB >/dev/hda = 80000MB >Pair1 = /dev/hde, /dev/hdg on the Promise Ultra TX2 (bootable, ATA100, >boots to large drives) >Pair2 = /dev/hda, /dev/hdc on the motherboard IDE controllers (ATA33 >and BIOS cannot boot to large drives) > >/dev/hd*1 32 RAID1 0.03 /boot /dev/md1 32 > 0.03 Pair1 >/dev/hd*2 768 RAID1 0.75 Swap /dev/md0 768 > 0.75 Pair1 >/dev/hd*5 1760 RAID1 1.72 / /dev/md2 1760 > 1.72 Pair1 > >/dev/hd*5 2560 RAID1 2.5 /usr /dev/md3 2560 > 2.5 Pair2 > >/dev/hd*6 57462 RAID5 56.12 /mnt/array /dev/md4 > 172386 168.35 (all) >/dev/hda7 20663 (non-raid) 20.18 > >One thing though, since I'm posting to the list... > >I have the machine able to boot from RAID, and the filesystem is >copied to the above assigned md devices. I added the initial >installation drive (happened to be /dev/hde) and to the md4 array to >complete the RAID5. All RAID5 component partitions are the exact same >block size according to fdisk -l , so at least partitioning the larger >disk was okay. > >The problem is now that during the course of the re-sync (it added hde >in as 'spare', is that normal?) it tells me that /dev/hdc has 'failed' >and decides to kick it out. That's a bit worrysome, since what happens >if there was data on that array? Does that tend to happen? Is RAID5 >REALLY that unreliable? Jokes about p0rn and replacable data aside, >should we really be trusting valuable data to it? What are the >opinions out there? > >I'm wondering about just saying 'screw it' to RAID5 and doing two >RAID1 mirrors with the partitions instead since it's data I really do >not want to lose that would be going on there. I've never had any >problems with any of the HDs, even hdc, so it's quite surprising it >would barf like that. The kernel didn't give any messages and I've >since rebooted. I was tinkering with it from work during my lunch >break, getting the RAID arrays created and booting from RAID, but now >after rebooting it's not come back so that I can log into it again. I >guess I'll see what it's complaining about this evening :> > >Derek > >On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 10:07:03 +0000, Robin Bowes > wrote: > > >>Norman Schmidt wrote: >> >> >>>Hi Derek! >>> >>>What worries me a little bit about your setup is that you seem to want >>>to put the drives as master and slave on each of the two busses of the >>>ata controller. >>> >>> >>Ah, I missed that. Yes, that's definitely not a good idea. Get yourself >>another controller card and stick to one disk per ATA channel. >> >>R. >>-- >>http://robinbowes.com >> >>- >>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in >>the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >>More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> >> >> > > >