Another question related to my first post in the thread. I'm currently locally rsync'ing the data I pulled off my damaged disk to the RAID-5 array from one ssh session. However, I notice a pause if I 'ls' on another session while a large file is being rsync'ed (until it is finished). Is this normal? Does the fact that the Asus P5GL-MX has 4 SATA ports, but they are marked "master/slave" have anything to do with these pauses? I thought I would think that I have plenty of horsepower (P4 3.0G), memory and I/O bandwidth to avoid this... I am using Slack 10.2, kernel 2.6.14.4 with AHCI enabled and SATA in native mode on the three disks. Andargor --- Andargor The Wise <andargor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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: > > > > === 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
