Tag Info

New answers tagged

0

If you removed the new disk, you will interrupt the raid rebuild process. Why would you do that? If you want to lower the speed of raid rebuild, you can play with this variable: /proc/sys/dev/raid/speed_limit_max


1

Lots of similar questions in a short period... Ubuntu isn't well-suited to vendor-specific hardware support (probably the vendors' fault, but it is what it is). The HP ProLiant N54L server you have has binary drivers for the storage array that are only available for Windows and Red Hat. See: Cant find my harddrives in ubuntu installation? The RAID ...


2

There is no added value of creating a partition table there, unless you want to subdivide the amount of space further. If you need to subdivide the space further you would possibly benefit most from using the logical volume manager instead of creating partitions and then you can still skip the creation of a partition table and address the whole RAID 6 ...


4

Arguments against the partitioning: Partitions are strict, obsolete things in the today. A repartitioning mostly a problematic thing. You won't be able to change things in the future. Raid devices are directly partitionable only in newer kernels. Thus I suggest you to simply use the whole disk directly, if you won't use some advanced solution. On Linux, ...


4

Do not attempt to mount directly the device ! You need to mount a partition of it. For example, this is wrong when you do: mount /dev/sda /mnt What you should do is: mount /dev/sda3 /mnt The system need the meta-data enclosed in the partition to know what to do with it. If you mount directly the device, these meta-data are missing and the mount will ...


1

From the information you provided, my impression is that Volume group is created out of 4 partitions sd[abcd]2 and not from md1 raid array. You should run pvdisplay and/or pvs to confirm that. If that's correct, the way to proceed would be to remove LV, VG and PVS from sd[abcd]2, rebuild RAID 10, and pvcreate /dev/md1; vgcreate ...


3

Everything on all of the remaining disks has to be read in order to reconstruct the data on the replacement drive. So you are reading 5x2TB=10TB. 10^14 is 100 trillion bits, or 12.5 trillion bytes. 10/12.5, then, seems to be correct. You have approximately an 80% chance of having a URE occur during the rebuild. (For statistical reasons I don't quite fully ...


0

As others have said, normal practice with md-RAID metadevices is to put the file system directly on it. The metadevice should already only be made up of partitions (putting RAID devices on top of whole-disc devices is a practice that I find involves shooting yourself in the foot more often than not), so you're not violating the advice you received. But an ...


3

The only method I have ever used was to partition the physical disks, then combine the partitions into a RAID, and put file system (or swap) directly on the md device. As far as I know partitioning the md device is a feature, which was added later, but never became widely used. I would recommend against attempting to create a RAID directly on a physical ...



Top 50 recent answers are included