Yet another thing, someone has suggested that I should increase the chunk size for my RAID5 from 32 to either 64 or 128. Is it worth it, considering that the system doesn't normally run on a heavy load? Mail for a few users, some read-only database applications, website, etc. Mostly a development machine. Would this alleviate the "pauses" during large file transfers/copies that I have indicated in my previous post? I'm asking because backing up ~176 GB, reconfiguring the RAID, and restoring it properly so the machine boots (the RAID5 is /) is quite a PITA. Andargor --- Andargor The Wise <andargor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 > === 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
