I have not had any corruption or any other problems, other than when a disk fails. Even then, never had data loss. I just ignore the bogus numbers. Guy -----Original Message----- From: linux-raid-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-raid-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ewan Grantham Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 6:33 PM To: Guy Cc: David Greaves; linux-raid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Preparation advice? On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 13:00:54 -0500, Guy <bugzilla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > This is normal (IMO) for a 2.4 kernel. > I think it has been fixed in the 2.6 kernel. But I have never used the > newer kernel, so I can't confirm that. It may have been a newer version of > mdadm, not the kernel, not sure. A rather different definition of normal - but for a computer system I guess I shouldn't be that surprised :-) I'm not overly inclined to move to the 2.6 kernel at the moment as my experience with IEEE1394 under 2.6 has been very mixed. I think it's because it's easier to see what's happening "under the hood" with the 2.4 code. Since I gather you haven't seen any lost data from this, then I'm going to start filling up. Did a couple test captures today without any dropped frames, so I'm feeling a bit more comfortable that this is going to work. Assuming I bought some more drives in the future, would I be better off getting another firewire card or two, or going with USB 2? Thanks again for all the help and advice, Ewan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
