Ok, I got things up and running, hopefully. A question
about LILO, however.
This is my raidtab:
raiddev /dev/md0
raid-level 1
nr-raid-disks 3
nr-spare-disks 0
chunk-size 32
persistent-superblock 1
device /dev/sda1
raid-disk 0
device /dev/sdb1
raid-disk 1
device /dev/sdc1
raid-disk 2
raiddev /dev/md1
raid-level 1
nr-raid-disks 3
nr-spare-disks 0
chunk-size 32
persistent-superblock 1
device /dev/sda2
raid-disk 0
device /dev/sdb2
raid-disk 1
device /dev/sdc2
raid-disk 2
raiddev /dev/md2
raid-level 5
nr-raid-disks 3
nr-spare-disks 0
parity-algorithm left-symmetric
chunk-size 32
persistent-superblock 1
device /dev/sda5
raid-disk 0
device /dev/sdb5
raid-disk 1
device /dev/sdc5
raid-disk 2
And my lilo.conf:
boot=/dev/md0
raid-extra-boot=/dev/sda,/dev/sdb,/dev/sdc
map=/boot/System.map
install=/boot/boot.b
message=/boot/boot_message.txt
prompt
compact
lba32
timeout=30
default=Linux
change-rules
reset
vga = normal
image = /boot/bzImage-2.6.14.4
root = /dev/md2
append="idebus=66"
label = Linux
read-only
image = /boot/vmlinuz
root = /dev/md2
append="idebus=66"
label = slack_orig
read-only
When I run LILO, I get:
Warning: COMPACT may conflict with LBA32 on some
systems
Added Linux *
Added slack_orig
The boot record of /dev/md0 has been updated.
The boot record of /dev/sda has been updated.
Warning: /dev/sdb is not on the first disk
The boot record of /dev/sdb has been updated.
Warning: /dev/sdc is not on the first disk
The boot record of /dev/sdc has been updated.
Are the warnings normal?
Andargor
--- "Callahan, Tom" <CallahanT@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Sorry, I'm programmed for HA lately. Your plan
> sounds good then, I wish you
> the best of luck.
>
> Tom Callahan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andargor The Wise [mailto:andargor@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 3:22 PM
> To: Callahan, Tom; linux-raid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: First RAID Setup
>
>
>
>
> --- "Callahan, Tom" <CallahanT@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > I understand the reason for the RAID1 devices.....
> I
> > was asking why you have
> > 3 devices in the RAID1 setup? RAID1 is a mirrored
> > configuration, requiring
> > only 2 disks for operation.
>
> Right. Like I indicated, I reviewed this list for
> suggested configurations and this is what I came up
> with as a result.
>
> I guess you do only need two disks, since you'll be
> able to recover anyway, but it seemed a simpler
> config
> with identical disk partitions and only a small
> amount
> of space wasted on one disk.
>
> > It is always wise to build in a spare however,
> that
> > being said about all
> > raid levels. In your configuration, if a disk
> fails
> > in your RAID5, your
> > array will go down. RAID5 is usually 3+ disks,
> with
> > a mirror. So you should
> > have 3 disks at minimum, and then a 4th as a
> spare.
>
> But if I don't mind the machine coming down, I don't
> think I need a spare? I just want to be able to rip
> out the bad drive, slap in a new one, rebuild, and
> be
> back in business with all my data. I don't need HA.
>
> (snip)
> > Another gotcha, it's usually better to use entire
> > disks, if you can afford
> > to, in an MD array. This alleviates growing pains
> of
> > having to manually
> > repartition if you want to grow an exisiting
> > filesystem. This may not make
> > much sense now, but once you have to do it, you'll
> > smack your forehead in
> > grief.
>
> Yes, I can see that, you instead grow by slapping in
> extra disks and then resizing the array. Hmm. I'll
> have to think about that.
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Tom Callahan
>
>
> Thanks for the advice, lots to mull over. I've got
> time, I'm still ddrescue'ing my crashed drive... :)
>
> Andargor
>
>
>
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andargor The Wise
> [mailto:andargor@xxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 2:45 PM
> > To: Callahan, Tom; linux-raid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: First RAID Setup
> >
> >
> > The RAID1 partitions are to make sure:
> >
> > 1) The machine is able to boot even if a disk is
> > lost
> > (/boot).
> > 2) The machine isn't brought down if a disk is
> lost
> > (swap)
> >
> > I thought about a spare drive, but I don't need
> high
> > availability. I'm satisfied with being able to
> > recover
> > my data.
> >
> > Andargor
> >
> >
> > --- "Callahan, Tom" <CallahanT@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > You "should" have a designated spare for RAID-5.
> > >
> > > Not sure why you have 3 disks for each RAID1,
> > RAID1
> > > is mirror, and unless
> > > the third drive is a spare, it is not needed.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Tom Callahan
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: linux-raid-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > [mailto:linux-raid-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On
> Behalf
> > > Of Andargor The Wise
> > > Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 2:10 PM
> > > To: linux-raid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: First RAID Setup
> > >
> > >
> > > I admit it. I'm a RAID virgin.
> > >
> > > However, after a disastrous failure of the sole
> > > drive
> > > I wasn't backing up, I decided to go RAID-5
> under
> > > Slack 10.2 (first time ever with RAID-5).
> > >
> > > The config:
> > >
> > > Asus P5GL-MX (ICH6) mobo w/1 GB RAM, 4 x SATA
> > ports
> > > P4 3.0G/1M
> > > 3 x WD2000JS 200.0 GB SATA drives
> > >
> > > First, a question: the BIOS on this machine
> seems
> > to
> > > list the SATA ports as "third/fourth IDE
> > > master/slave". Further, the documentation seems
> to
> > > say
> > > that SATA 1/2 are "master" and SATA 3/4 are
> > "slave"
> > > (black and red connectors, respectively).
> > >
> > > My understanding is that SATA drives are each on
> > > separate buses. Is this because the BIOS offers
> a
> > > P-ATA emulation mode for SATA and it makes it
> > > "easier"
> > > to understand for novices to show them that way?
> > >
> > > I ask because people have said that it is not a
> > good
> > > idea to have both IDE masters and slaves on the
> > same
> > > bus as part of a RAID-5 array. I know SATA is
> > > different, but will using three of the SATA
> ports
> > on
> > > this mobo be OK?
> > >
> > > Second, after reading the excellent advice in
> this
> > > list, I decided that booting from RAID-5 might
> not
> > > be
> > > a good idea. So this is what I've been thinking:
> > >
> > > Each disk partitioned alike:
> > > 1 30MB
> > > 2 8GB (to allow for memory upgrades later)
> > > 5 rest_of_disk
> > >
> > > mds:
> > > md0 raid1 sda1 sdb1 sdc1
> > > md1 raid1 sda2 sdb2 sdc2
> > > md2 raid5 sda5 sdb5 sdc5
> > >
> > > md0 /boot
> > > md1 swap
> > > md2 /
> > >
> > > Does this look OK? What should the stripe and
> > chunk
> > > sizes be, considering I'll be going with
> reiserfs?
> > > Typical usage: development machine, some DB apps
> > > with
> > > medium load, read-only mostly, not many writes.
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.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
