Tag Info

New answers tagged

1

It sounds like disk 0:0 failed to begin with, leaving it no longer showing as an active member of the RAID5 VD. The S100 seems to be a bit quirky as to how it handles drive failures and the labeling of previously-failed drives, so confusion over situations like this isn't uncommon. If you have another replacement hard drive available, I'd recommend swapping ...


0

It is worth noting that I replaced a drive in this array a few weeks ago (the array was listed as degraded and not failed), verified it started the rebuild, and never checked it again. Now I see in the logs that the rebuild failed due to data errors on the original disks. I expect if I could get the rebuild to complete I'd be in good shape. The S100 doesn't ...


3

From the H710 Spec Sheet: Up to 64 logical drive and 64TB LUN support So in answer to your actual question, the card itself supports LUN sizes as high as you're wanting. The real problem you may run into is that the H710 card is validated & tested with 12th generation server hardware it was released alongside, e.g. the R720. Your R710 only ...


1

Is your project highly performance dependent since the very beginning? If not, you may be better going with software RAID now. If your OS of choice is GNU/Linux (no OS info in question) then supported is DDF-based mdraid. H710 specs also indicate support for DDF, so in case you need HW RAID controller in the future the migration should be piece of cake.


2

This sounds like it's most likely a simple drive failure, combined w/ some OMSA/controller troubles in displaying the proper status. The problem drive is probably the one you're seeing in a "ready" state from the BIOS - that just means that the drive still functions when the controller tries to initialize it, but it is no longer an active member of the ...


0

Though it's feasible that this could be done simply based on the math (no change in usable capacity, essentially convert all of the pieces of parity data stored on the drives into "normal" data), I seriously doubt that the H310 will support RAID level changes while the RAID set is not in a healthy state. Why would you even want to do this? Simply to make ...


2

So you have a redundant array of disks that started to die. And you want to migrate it to the raid level where the death of a single disk will be fatal for data. My opinion - it's some sort of complicated suicide.


0

This looks like the part you're looking for: XP00F - ASSY,CBL,MB,HD,SAS A,R420/R320 - Mini SAS & ODD power cable, MB (SAS A) to HDD (used with cable HDD). This is the SAS version of the cable, where p/n H3YKR looks to be the SATA version - though I'd expect the SAS cable would probably work fine for either anyway since the SAS connectors are ...


1

As @duskwuff already mentioned, this is a GPT partition table, so fdisk only shows protective MBR content. Use gdisk -l /dev/sda instead. You may be having more than one partition, in which case you will only be able to resize the last one. The workaround (not recommended) may be software RAID0 (called mdraid in Linux) spanning the partition you want to ...


1

Part VM02C is listed in Dell's internal DBs as "PERC H710 Adapter - FH Gen 3" I'm not sure what those 3 part numbers are (they turn up as invalid with my searches), but the model you're looking at online should be fully compatible with your system. Here are all the part numbers listed as available for "dispatch" for the T420: VM02C PERC H710 Adapter - ...


3

There is no easy way to do so, if you're not using LVM. Here is a procedure you can follow safely, if you are very very careful. The best way to be careful would be to backup your data before, obviously. Fortunately, your partition starts at first sector, so you don't need to worry on this one. Your problem is on the end, which is not your (new) last ...


0

It never occurred to me that these performance numbers are to be expected. I thought there was some hidden problem that was eluding me. Shame on Dell for selling this junk. This server cost rather a lot, and my laptop can beat it on certain tasks. It would seem this issue is resolved. This is the expected behavior. There is no problem.


1

The H310 does not have any write cache (compared to the H710, which has 512MB of battery-backed cache), so right off the bat you're not going to get "great" write performance with it. The H310 also doesn't utilize the cache built into the hard drives by default, so everything is strictly "write-through". You could always enable disk caching in Windows, ...


0

As far as "support" goes, you'll be hard pressed to find this spelled out in the documentation. Most 10th-generation and newer Dell servers have good documentation available with a list of all of the supported drive models, but I've not seen this for the 2950. I can tell you from personal experience that the 2950 never introduced SSD support of any kind. ...



Top 50 recent answers are included