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
<robin-lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@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
