Tag Info

New answers tagged

1

Booting with Software RAID almost always requires a separate /boot partition, especially with older versions of GRUB. Specifying "--metadata=0.90" when creating the RAID-1 partition for /boot is also required. /boot should be the first partition and kept small. Mostly for legacy BIOS boot reasons. The other reason that /boot should be a separate ...


2

Interesting question from a customer/end user perspective. My advice is not to use the HP DL380 G5 systems for anything today, if you can avoid it? They are unfavorable for power, performance, support and compatibility reasons. A few examples: RAM is very limited on this model. Any SATA SSD used on a Smart Array P400-era controller (2005-2008) will be ...


0

Keep in mind that most all Enterprise RAID controllers still don't support SATA TRIM / SCSI UNMAP (give it another couple years and they likely will). That means you will need an SSD with built-in garbage collection. Most Dell-branded MLC SSDs today tend to be made by Intel, with a SandForce controller on the SSD to cover the garbage collection. Without ...


0

As ewwhite and GregL already mentioned, install the OpenMange VIB within your ESXi. This also works great on the ESXi Free, but you need do do it at the commandline. For automated monitoring, we use check_openmanage - a great nagios/icinga/etc-plugin which is talking directly to the OpenMange-Daemon running on your ESXi. It also works great with OpenManage ...


0

I can see that RAID 0 has been suggested, and I would advise as everyone else has done to stay away from RAID 0. If one of your two drives fail then all data on both drives is lost. This means that the chances of data loss are doubled. Do you need the full 6TB right now? If not you could RAID 1 the drives meaning that you get approx 3TB of storage with ...


0

You seem to be using about 6TB of disk estate. I see one 1.7TB RAID1 (uses 2x1.7TB) and one 1TB RAID (uses 2x1TB). Added together it is about 5.5TiB which pretty much equals 6TB. Nothing to be gained there ...


0

Have you tried it? As you have the server already what's stopping you? You phrase this as if it's a hypothetical problem that would easily be tested yourself. Also, Red Hat 6 is in the OS certification matrix, so there is no reason that CentOS 6 wouldn't work.


2

RAID 6 consists of block-level striping with double distributed parity. So, it tolerates two disks failures only (one more disk than Raid 5). In summary, it is not possible for Raid 6 to survive three disk failures. Increasing number of disks to ten (for example) just adds more capacity and does not improve availability (redundancy).


0

As far as I remember Windows software RAID refuses creating an array on disk with different block sizes (limitation), are you sure that your disks' block size are equal? I can bet that 2TB disk has 4096 bits sector and 1TB 512 bits.


2

Due to how Linux raid behaves, using a three way raid1 vs a two way+hot spare raid1 setup gives: slightly lower random write performance, because arrays's access latency (seek time+rotational delay) is the worst of the the disks composing the array significantly better random read performance, as Linux raid is capable of issuing multiple, independent reads ...


-2

Just my thoughts...once upon a time I had an old PC with no SATA ports. Me knowing nothing bought a raid adapter card and set up a single HDD in Raid with the SATA Hard Drive. Not sure of the raid mode but I'm guessing it was Raid0...And guess what...It works. Today I find myself looking to do the same thing. I have a new Asus Mother board which has NO raid ...


0

You didn't post the zpool status for this but you imply in the post that all 16 disks are in a single vdev in RAIDZ2. While this is a good, safe configuration you have to understand that RAIDZ isn't designed primarily for speed. It is designed to be near bulletproof. RAIDZ2 is analogous to RAID6 but the variant has features that make it slower and safer. ...


0

It would seem the first 40% of the drive is readable so some data may be recoverable. But the Sense Code error indicates the disk check tool ran into unreadable sectors. And the drive "disappearing" is not a good sign. So at a minimum the drive is starting to fail. If you want to try something yourself you could try to access the drive from Linux and ...


0

This is an alignment issue of the columns, not sure what causes this. All responses from Bus Prtocol down should be shifted down one row.


2

So as you said it still boots to the windows login screen I assume with the exception of the error message you posted the server is running fine? Controller event log: BBU disabled, changing WB virtual disks to WT: Controller 0 (PERC 5/E Adapter) Basically this error message only tells you that the battery of your RAID controller is bad/gone/not ...


5

Brands and specific models of the equipment involved are ALWAYS appreciated. However, you'll be fine. The SATA 3.0 protocol is backward compatible with previous generations. The drives will link at their respective disk/backplane speeds.


0

Last sunday, I formatted and reinstalled SO using the B120i in AHCI mode. I've used the Linux MD for RAID, and I've got better results. Now, the read rate is about 300 MB/s, and the copy rate from the disks to a LTO-4 tape is about 140 MB/s. It's copying 1 TB to tape in 2h30. It's not the best solution (I would like to use the B120 RAID mode), but for now ...


1

Looks like you did an mdadm --create on "Creation Time : Thu Jun 11 23:21:12 2015", that could be a problem if you used the wrong parameters. What command line did you use? Also when the mount fails what is reported by... dmesg | tail And it's a good idea to check the SMART data on the drives to see if they are healthy. Don't despair. I often work on ...


0

The traditional method to enable quasi-direct access to the sigle disks in absence of a true passthrough feature is to create multiple single-disk RAID0 arrays (one array for each disk). Then, you can test trim functionality using an appropriate program as trimchecker


0

You need to use SPP package from HP. Check this link for more information


0

If you want you can assemble with three drives in degraded mode... mdadm --assemble --force /dev/md0 /dev/sda /dev/sdb /dev/sdd "missing" is an option that can be used with mdadm --create


0

Did you try assembling it with missing in place of the odd third disk sdc, i.e. mdadm --assemble /dev/md0 /dev/sda /dev/sdb missing /dev/sdd --verbose That sounds like it could work because the remaining three appear to be in sync and with RAID-5 N-1 is sufficient to restart the array in degraded mode. It's possible that the device indices aren't right, ...


6

Hard drives do have a multitude of error correction methods in place to prevent data corruption. Hard drives are divided into sectors, from which some may become completely unwritable / unreadable or return wrong data through data corruption - let's call the first bad sector corruption and the latter silent data corruption. Bad Sector Corruption The first ...


0

Well, things are a bit more complex. Modern hard drives don't just detect errors, they have some spare sectors and smart controllers that try to relocate bad sectors. That is, when you try to read some logical sector and it doesn't read at first time, the controller tries to read it several times, and sometimes it can read it after some retries; then it ...


0

Big fat warning: Anything you do with your array (including stuff I suggest) may lead to a complete data loss. If there is a really valuable (expensive to regain) not-backed-up data, let someone experienced handle the situation for you. Including making binary copies of all four drives. From your output it seems you have Device Role : Active device 3 ...


0

It seems like you've lost a whole subarray of your Raid10 (Drives sdd, sde were a mirror before?!) - if this would be the case, your data is lost.


1

From man mdadm(8): Changing the number of active devices in a RAID5 or RAID6 is much more effort. Every block in the array will need to be read and written back to a new location. From 2.6.17, the Linux Kernel is able to increase the number of devices in a RAID5 safely, including restarting an interrupted "reshape". From 2.6.31, the Linux Kernel ...


0

Moving linux system from one raid mode to another is possible, but quite complicated: You need full backup of the file system preserving permissions (tar), some live cd for example. Changing mode of the array part. Creating partition/lvm and restoring it from backup (again with preserving permissions) (parted). Making adjustments in grub/lilo configuration ...


1

Yes, this is possible. I don't like the reasoning for it, since you're likely better off acquiring more disks. However, an online or offline virtual disk reconfiguration is definitely possible with your controller.


1

Just use "DEVICE partitions", it will try all devices listed in /proc/partitions, and you wouldn't have to worry at all what the device names are. UUID of an array is stored on each device belonging to it, so each array will be assembled correctly even if you have several of them.


1

I did same mistake few months ago, deleted array on wrong server (ProLiant ML110 G7 with Smart Array B110i). 6 easy steps: Do byte-by-byte backup of first mirror. Recreate logical drive. Good thing of that recreation in my case was that it didn't resync physical disks. It touched only beginning of the disk, messed up partition table. Windows MFT and files ...



Top 50 recent answers are included