Search Results

Search found 139 results on 6 pages for 'raid10'.

Page 2/6 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6  | Next Page >

  • RAIDZ vs RAID1+0

    - by Hiro2k
    Hi guys I just got 4 SSDs for my FreeNAS box. This server is only used to serve a single iSCSI extent to my Citrix XenServer pool and was wondering if I should setup them up in a RAIDZ or a RAID 1+0 configuration. This isn't used for anything in production, just for my test lab so I'm not sure which one is going to be better in this scenario. Will I see a major difference in speed or reliability? Currently the server has three 500GB Western Digital Blue drives and it's dog slow when I deploy a new version of our software on it, hence the upgrade.

    Read the article

  • Zero-channel RAID for High Performance MySQL Server (IBM ServeRAID 8k) : Any Experience/Recommendati

    - by prs563
    We are getting this IBM rack mount server and it has this IBM ServeRAID8k storage controller with Zero-Channel RAID and 256MB battery backed cache. It can support RAID 10 which we need for our high performance MySQL server which will have 4 x 15000K RPM 300GB SAS HDD. This is mission-critical and we want as much bandwidth and performance. Is this a good card or should we replace with another IBM RAID card? IBM ServeRAID 8k SAS Controller option provides 256 MB of battery backed 533 MHz DDR2 standard power memory in a fixed mounting arrangement. The device attaches directly to IBM planar which can provide full RAID capability. Manufacturer IBM Manufacturer Part # 25R8064 Cost Central Item # 10025907 Product Description IBM ServeRAID 8k SAS - Storage controller (zero-channel RAID) - RAID 0, 1, 5, 6, 10, 1E Device Type Storage controller (zero-channel RAID) - plug-in module Buffer Size 256 MB Supported Devices Disk array (RAID) Max Storage Devices Qty 8 RAID Level RAID 0, RAID 1, RAID 5, RAID 6, RAID 10, RAID 1E Manufacturer Warranty 1 year warranty

    Read the article

  • LSI MegaRAID LINUX got Optimal after degradation but strange POST message

    - by kesrut
    Linux server box with LSI MegaRAID controller got degraded. But after some time RAID status changed to Optimal. Adapter 0 -- Virtual Drive Information: Virtual Drive: 0 (Target Id: 0) Name : RAID Level : Primary-1, Secondary-0, RAID Level Qualifier-0 Size : 2.727 TB Mirror Data : 2.727 TB State : Optimal Strip Size : 256 KB Number Of Drives per span:2 Span Depth : 3 Default Cache Policy: WriteBack, ReadAdaptive, Cached, No Write Cache if Bad BBU Current Cache Policy: WriteThrough, ReadAdaptive, Cached, No Write Cache if Bad BBU Default Access Policy: Read/Write Current Access Policy: Read/Write Disk Cache Policy : Disk's Default Encryption Type : None Is VD Cached: No But now I'm getting RAID BIOS POST message: Your battery is either charging, bad or missing, and you have VDs configured for write-back mode. Because the battery is not currently usable, these VDs willl actually run in write-through mode until the battery is fully charged or replaced if it is bad or missing. (Image: http://cl.ly/image/1h1O093b1i2d) So may it be battery issue caused problem ? I get information about battery: BatteryType: iBBU Voltage: 4001 mV Current: 0 mA Temperature: 22 C Battery State : Operational BBU Firmware Status: Charging Status : None Voltage : OK Temperature : OK Learn Cycle Requested : No Learn Cycle Active : No Learn Cycle Status : OK Learn Cycle Timeout : No I2c Errors Detected : No Battery Pack Missing : No Battery Replacement required : No Remaining Capacity Low : No Periodic Learn Required : No Transparent Learn : No No space to cache offload : No Pack is about to fail & should be replaced : No Cache Offload premium feature required : No Module microcode update required : No Where can be problem ? I'm disabled alarms, but get them if enabled. But don't know how find root of problem.

    Read the article

  • SQL Server: One 12-drive RAID-10 array or 2 arrays of 8-drives and 4-drives

    - by ben
    Setting up a box for SQL Server 2008, which would give the best performance (heavy OLTP)? The more drives in a RAID-10 array the better performance, but will losing 4 drives to dedicate them to the transaction logs give us more performance. 12-drives in RAID-10 plus one hot spare. OR 8-drives in RAID-10 for database and 4-drives RAID-10 for transaction logs plus 2 hot spares (one for each array). We have 14-drive slots to work with and it's an older PowerVault that doesn't support global hot spares.

    Read the article

  • How many disks to use for eight channel RAID controller

    - by Tvrtko
    I have a 3ware 8 channel SAS controller and a back plane extender (also 8 channel) which can take 16 drives. I will be creating a single RAID 10 volume. I know that adding more drives has positive effect on performance, but I'm not sure if adding more than 8 drives on an 8 channel controller will have any positive impact at all. Am I wrong? Should I put 16 drives for best performance? Would 8 drives give me the same performance?

    Read the article

  • Dell R320 RAID 10 with CacheCade

    - by Geekman
    I'm looking for a higher-performance build for our 1RU Dell R320 servers, in terms of IOPS. Right now I'm fairly settled on: 4 x 600 GB 3.5" 15K RPM SAS RAID 1+0 array This should give good performance, but if possible, I want to also add an SSD Cache into the mix, but I'm not sure if there's enough room? According to the tech-specs, there's only up to 4 total 3.5" drive bays available. Is there any way to fit at least a single SSD drive along-side the 4x3.5" drives? I was hoping there's a special spot to put the cache SSD drive (though from memory, I doubt there'd be room). Or am I right in thinking that the cache drives are simply drives plugged in "normally" just as any other drive, but are nominated as CacheCade drives in the PERC controller? Are there any options for having the 4x600GB RAID 10 array, and the SSD cache drive, too? Based on the tech-specs (with up to 8x2.5" drives), maybe I need to use 2.5" SAS drives, leaving another 4 bays spare, plenty of room for the SSD cache drive. Has anyone achieved this using 3.5" drives, somehow?

    Read the article

  • RAID 10: SPAN 2 vs SPAN 4

    - by LaDante Riley
    I am currently configuring RAID 10 (first time doing RAID ever) for a server at work. In the Configuration Utility. I am given the option of either span 2 or span 4. Having never done this before, I was curious if someone could tell me the pros and cons of for each span? Thanks The server is a Poweredge r620 with a PERC H710 mini (Security Capable) RAID controller. I have 8 600GB hard drives. I am creating this server as a network storage drive. I have SQL server historian database whose 1TB storage filled up and after 5 years of logging data.

    Read the article

  • Linux software RAID 10 implementation

    - by fabrik
    Hello there! I don't want to force anybody to make it on behalf of me but trust me: i've looked hundreds of sites and i can't find a good starting point for this. I have 4x500Gb HDD's which i want to set up in RAID 10. The most promising description is here, but it's a little old and unclear for me, above all i prefer Debian over Ubuntu (i know there are slight or no differences). Is it possible to build RAID 10 with Debian's installer or i need to build RAID 1 first in the installer then use mdadm later? What is the best practice for building software RAID 10 under Linux (Debian)? Thanks for your time, fabrik

    Read the article

  • Zero-channel RAID for High Performance MySQL Server (IBM ServeRAID 8k) : Any Experience/Recommendation?

    - by prs563
    We are getting this IBM rack mount server and it has this IBM ServeRAID8k storage controller with Zero-Channel RAID and 256MB battery backed cache. It can support RAID 10 which we need for our high performance MySQL server which will have 4 x 15000K RPM 300GB SAS HDD. This is mission-critical and we want as much bandwidth and performance. Is this a good card or should we replace with another IBM RAID card? IBM ServeRAID 8k SAS Controller option provides 256 MB of battery backed 533 MHz DDR2 standard power memory in a fixed mounting arrangement. The device attaches directly to IBM planar which can provide full RAID capability. Manufacturer IBM Manufacturer Part # 25R8064 Cost Central Item # 10025907 Product Description IBM ServeRAID 8k SAS - Storage controller (zero-channel RAID) - RAID 0, 1, 5, 6, 10, 1E Device Type Storage controller (zero-channel RAID) - plug-in module Buffer Size 256 MB Supported Devices Disk array (RAID) Max Storage Devices Qty 8 RAID Level RAID 0, RAID 1, RAID 5, RAID 6, RAID 10, RAID 1E Manufacturer Warranty 1 year warranty

    Read the article

  • Raid 5 with hot spare or RAID 10 with no hot spare?

    - by Boden
    Yes, this is on of those "do my job for me" questions, have some pity:) I'm at the limit for what I can do with the number of hard drives in a server without spending a substantial amount of money. I have four drives left to configure, and I can either set them up as a RAID 5 and dedicate a hot spare, or a RAID 10 with no hot spare. The size of each will be the same, and the RAID 5 will offer enough performance. I'm RAID 5 shy, but I also don't like the idea of running without a hot spare. I'm not so interested in degraded performance, but the amount of time the system is without adequate redundancy. The server and drives are under a 13x5 4 hour response contract (although I happen to know that the nearest service provider is at least 2-3 hours away by car in the winter). I should note that the server also has two RAID 1 arrays which would also be protected by the hot spare. Why don't they make drive cages with 9 bays! Heh.

    Read the article

  • RAID controller dropping the wrong drive

    - by bramp
    I've been having an issue with 3ware 9500S-8 RAID 10, and I have contracted their tech support, but I wanted to hear the serverfault community's recommendations. Firstly, all my data is backuped and secure, so I don't mind blowing my RAID away if I have to. But let me describe the problem I've been seeing. A month ago, disk 6 dropped out of the RAID. It is mirrored with disk 7, so I wasn't that bothered. I went to the data centre and replaced it. When I got back to the office, I noticed that disk 6 will still not in the RAID, and in fact the controller was show the name of the old drive still. A week later I went back and replace the drive again, thinking I might have swapped in a bad drive. Still the same problem. I decided to reboot the machine, to see if that would "force" the controller into seeing the new drive. It did, and a rebuild started to happen (from disk 7). Eventually both drives were showing as good. A week later, the MySQL database has flagged the database is corrupt, and is unable to repair it. I don't know what has gone wrong, but I suspected this 6-7 pair. At this point I noticed that the RAID had constantly been verifying itself, over and over. Regardless of this I began to rebuild the database, which took about 19 hours. It's a big database. Near the end of the repair, the RAID controller told me it had dropped disk 7, and that some data was most likely corrupted. I contacted LSI tech support, and they very promptly started to help me. I mentioned that drive 7 had been dropped. They suspect that drive 7 was always at fault, and drive 6 had always been good. I want to know how often a RAID controller would drop the wrong drive (in this case dropping drive 6 a month ago, instead of 7). I foolishly didn't run smartctl on the drives before I started swapping them out. I just assumed the RAID controller knew what it was talking about. I think my plan of action is to replace drive 7, rebuild the array from scratch, double check smartctl on ALL the disks, and then start restoring my data again. I would appreciate anyone's input on what the correct procedure for swapping drives is, and how often failures like this happen. If anyone would like more information then I'd be happy to provide it. thanks in advance. Oh some more information. I'm running CentOS 5.3, with two RAID arrays, a simple RAID 1 for the OS, and RAID 10 for the database. Both arrays are on different controllers. The RAID 10 is made of 10 identical ST3640323AS drives, until I swapped in a SAMSUNG HD103SJ last month.

    Read the article

  • Software Raid 10 on VirtualBox?

    - by user791022
    I want to learn how to use Software Raid 10, is it possible to use VirtualBox by adding four storage images? This is my plan: 4x 100mb partitions (1 on each drive) configured as a raid 1 for /boot in ext3. Then with the remaining space on each drive, setup a software raid partition and configure it to to LVM and raid 10. In the LVM, set up a 4gb swap partition and the remaining space as the root partition ( / ) as ext3.

    Read the article

  • RAID 10 or RAID 5 for multiple VMs - what is the best choice?

    - by Lars Fastrup
    I have just ordered a new rig for my business. We do a lot of software development for Microsoft SharePoint and need the rig to run several virtual machines for development and test purposes. We will be using the free VMware ESXi for virtualization. For a start, we plan to build and start the following VMs - all with Windows Server 2008 R2 x64: Active Directory server MS SQL Server 2008 R2 Automated Build Server SharePoint 2010 Server for hosting our public Web site and our internal Intranet for a few people. The load on this server is going to be quite insignificant. 2xSharePoint 2007 development server 2xSharePoint 2010 development server Beyond that we will need to build several SharePoint farms for testing purposes. These VMs will only be started when needed. The specs of the new rig is: Dell R610 rack server 2xIntel XEON E5620 48GB RAM 6x146GB SAS drives Dell H700 RAID controller We believe the new server is going to make our VMs perform a lot better than our existing setup (2xIntel XEON, 16GB RAM, 2x500 GB SATA in RAID 1). But we are not sure about the RAID level for the new rig. Should we go for having the the 6x146GB SAS drives in a RAID 10 configuration or a RAID 5 configuration? RAID 10 seems to offer better write performance and lower risk of a RAID failure. But it comes at a cost of less drive space. Do we need RAID 10 or would RAID 5 also be a good choice for us?

    Read the article

  • Shared storage solution for our sql server backups

    - by Gokhan
    We have 3 clustered sql servers. We have 5+ multi terrabyte databases and their backup files (compressed using quest litespeed) are hitting over 600gb each, We are required to keep at least a week or two weeks (if we can) of weekly full backups and then 6 days differential backups, and a week or 2 weeks worth of log backups local. We are currently limited to 2TB volumes from our san team, we can have multiple volumes but they are expensive ($200 per raw TB per month) and having to deal with many backup volumes instead of a single big volume is difficult. I think if we could have a shared network storage of 20TB+ raid 10 or so for all our servers for keeping the backups and another department will copy them to tape from the network storage and delete files according to the retention period would be good, if this box would be a build in operating system (even unix a complete file storage system) that would be good. What do you guys think, does this make sense to you, is there any manufacturer that sells a storage product like that which that work in a clustered environment? Thank you

    Read the article

  • Installing Solaris 10 on sunT5220 - ZFS/UFS raid 10?

    - by Matthew
    I am in a bit of a time crunch, and need to get two T5220's built. We were very happy to see two boxes in our aged inventory which had 8 HDD's each, but didn't think to check if they were running hardware RAID or not. Turns out that they aren't. When we install, we are given the option to use UFS or ZFS, but when we select a place to install we're only given the option of installing on one single disk. Is it possible to create a software raid 10 across all of the disks and install the OS on that? Sorry if any lingo is wrong, I'm not really a Sun guy and our guru is out of town right now. Any help would be really appreciated! Note: Most of the guides I've found on google entail installing the OS on a single disk, and then creating a separate RAID 10 on other disks. We would actually like the OS to reside on the RAID 10. Hope that clarifies things.

    Read the article

  • How to move a windows machine properly from RAID 1 to raid 10? [migrated]

    - by goober
    Goal I would like to add two more hard drives to my current RAID 1 setup and create a RAID 0 setup on top of the two RAID 1 setups (which I believe is referred to as "RAID 10"). Components Involved Intel P68 Chipset Motherboard 4 SATA ports that can be configured for Raid An intel SSD cache that sits in front of the RAID, and a 64 GB SSD configured in that manner Two 1TB HDDs configured in RAID 1 OS: Windows 7 Professional Resources Consulted so far I found a great resource on LinuxQuestions.org for a good "best practices" process for Linux machines, but I'd like to develop a similar process that I know works on Windows Machines.

    Read the article

  • RAID 10, how layout works ?

    - by Bastien974
    I'm trying to figure out how exactly works the RAID 10 in linux with mdadm. I want to create a RAID 10 out of 4 partitions, let's say a, b, c and d. a and b are on the array 1, c and d array 2. So what I want is to have the couple a and b, c and d in RAID 0. Then on top of that, a RAID 1. The option in the mdadm command to configure the layout is -p, --layout with option : near, far, offset see here I want to keep my data safe if the array 1 fails for example, that would mean that every chunk of data are always copied on both arrays. How do I have to set my RAID 10, near or far ?

    Read the article

  • When using RAID10 + BBWC why is it better to separate PostgreSQL data files from OS and transaction logs than to keep them all on the same array?

    - by Vlad
    I've seen the advice everywhere (including here and here): keep your OS partition, DB data files and DB transaction logs on separate discs/arrays. The general recommendation is to use RAID1 for OS, RAID10 for data (or RAID5 if load is very read-biased) and RAID1 for transaction logs. However, considering that you will need at least 6 or 8 drives to build this setup, wouldn't a RAID10 over 6-8 drives with BBWC perform better? What if the drives are SSDs? I'm talking here about internal server drives, not SAN.

    Read the article

  • raid md device is not remove from memory, how to overcome this problem

    - by santhosha
    i create raid 10 , i removed two arrays form md11 one by one , after that i going to editing the contents those are mounted ( it will be not responding stage), after i try for remove arrays those are left it is shows device or resource busy ( is not removed from memory). i try to terminate process this is also not work, i absorve from 4 days resync will be 8.0% it can not modifying. cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : [raid1] [raid0] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [linear] [raid10] md11 : active raid10 sde1[3] sdj14 286743936 blocks 64K chunks 2 near-copies [4/1] [___U] [1:2:3:0] [=...................] resync = 8.0% (23210368/286743936) finish=289392.6min speed=15K/sec mdadm -D /dev/md11 /dev/md11: Version : 00.90.03 Creation Time : Sun Jan 16 16:20:01 2011 Raid Level : raid10 Array Size : 286743936 (273.46 GiB 293.63 GB) Device Size : 143371968 (136.73 GiB 146.81 GB) Raid Devices : 4 Total Devices : 2 Preferred Minor : 11 Persistence : Superblock is persistent Update Time : Sun Jan 16 16:56:07 2011 State : active, degraded, resyncing Active Devices : 1 Working Devices : 1 Failed Devices : 1 Spare Devices : 0 Layout : near=2, far=1 Chunk Size : 64K Rebuild Status : 8% complete UUID : 5e124ea4:79a01181:dc4110d3:a48576ea Events : 0.23 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State 0 0 0 0 removed 1 0 0 1 removed 4 8 145 2 faulty spare rebuilding /dev/sdj1 3 8 65 3 active sync /dev/sde1 umount /dev/md11 umount: /dev/md11: not mounted mdadm -S /dev/md11 mdadm: fail to stop array /dev/md11: Device or resource busy lsof /dev/md11 COMMAND PID USER FD TYPE DEVICE SIZE NODE NAME mount 2128 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 mount 5018 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 mdadm 27605 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 mount 30562 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 badblocks 30591 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 kill -9 2128 kill -9 5018 kill -9 27605 kill -9 30562 kill -3 30591 mdadm -S /dev/md11 mdadm: fail to stop array /dev/md11: Device or resource busy lsof /dev/md11 COMMAND PID USER FD TYPE DEVICE SIZE NODE NAME mount 2128 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 mount 5018 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 mdadm 27605 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 mount 30562 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 badblocks 30591 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : [raid1] [raid0] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [linear] [raid10] md11 : active raid10 sde1[3] sdj14 286743936 blocks 64K chunks 2 near-copies [4/1] [___U] [1:2:3:0] [=...................] resync = 8.0% (23210368/286743936) finish=289392.6min speed=15K/sec

    Read the article

  • raid md device is not remove from memory, how to overcome this problem

    - by santhosha
    i create raid 10 , i removed two arrays form md11 one by one , after that i going to editing the contents those are mounted ( it will be not responding stage), after i try for remove arrays those are left it is shows device or resource busy ( is not removed from memory). i try to terminate process this is also not work, i absorve from 4 days resync will be 8.0% it can not modifying. cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : [raid1] [raid0] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [linear] [raid10] md11 : active raid10 sde1[3] sdj14 286743936 blocks 64K chunks 2 near-copies [4/1] [___U] [1:2:3:0] [=...................] resync = 8.0% (23210368/286743936) finish=289392.6min speed=15K/sec mdadm -D /dev/md11 /dev/md11: Version : 00.90.03 Creation Time : Sun Jan 16 16:20:01 2011 Raid Level : raid10 Array Size : 286743936 (273.46 GiB 293.63 GB) Device Size : 143371968 (136.73 GiB 146.81 GB) Raid Devices : 4 Total Devices : 2 Preferred Minor : 11 Persistence : Superblock is persistent Update Time : Sun Jan 16 16:56:07 2011 State : active, degraded, resyncing Active Devices : 1 Working Devices : 1 Failed Devices : 1 Spare Devices : 0 Layout : near=2, far=1 Chunk Size : 64K Rebuild Status : 8% complete UUID : 5e124ea4:79a01181:dc4110d3:a48576ea Events : 0.23 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State 0 0 0 0 removed 1 0 0 1 removed 4 8 145 2 faulty spare rebuilding /dev/sdj1 3 8 65 3 active sync /dev/sde1 umount /dev/md11 umount: /dev/md11: not mounted mdadm -S /dev/md11 mdadm: fail to stop array /dev/md11: Device or resource busy lsof /dev/md11 COMMAND PID USER FD TYPE DEVICE SIZE NODE NAME mount 2128 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 mount 5018 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 mdadm 27605 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 mount 30562 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 badblocks 30591 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 kill -9 2128 kill -9 5018 kill -9 27605 kill -9 30562 kill -3 30591 mdadm -S /dev/md11 mdadm: fail to stop array /dev/md11: Device or resource busy lsof /dev/md11 COMMAND PID USER FD TYPE DEVICE SIZE NODE NAME mount 2128 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 mount 5018 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 mdadm 27605 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 mount 30562 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 badblocks 30591 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : [raid1] [raid0] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [linear] [raid10] md11 : active raid10 sde1[3] sdj14 286743936 blocks 64K chunks 2 near-copies [4/1] [___U] [1:2:3:0] [=...................] resync = 8.0% (23210368/286743936) finish=289392.6min speed=15K/sec

    Read the article

  • Software RAID 10 on Linux

    - by vpetersson
    For a long time, I've been thinking about switching to RAID 10 on a few servers. Now that Ubuntu 10.04 LTS is live, it's time for an upgrade. The servers I'm using are HP Proliant ML115 (very good value). It has four internal 3.5" slots. I'm currently using one drive for the system and a RAID5 array (software) for the remaining three disks. The problem is that this creates a single-point-of-failure on the boot drive. Hence I'd like to switch to a RAID10 array, as it would give me both better I/O performance and more reliability. The problem is only that good controller cards that supports RAID10 (such as 3Ware) cost almost as much as the server itself. Moreover software-RAID10 does not seem to work very well with Grub. What is your advice? Should I just keep running RAID5? Have anyone been able to successfully install a software RAID10 without boot issues?

    Read the article

  • Single/Mulitple LUN for vmware vm hosting

    - by Yucong Sun
    I'm building a iscsi storage system for hosting about ~500 Vmware vm running concurrently. And I have a disk array with 15 disks, I only need moderate write performance but preferably not SPOFed. so, that leaves me with RAID1 / RAID10 , I have couple choices: 1) 3x LUN 4disk RAID10 + 3 hot-swap 2) 1x LUN 14disk RAID10 + 1 hot-swap 3) 7x LUN 2disk RAID1 + 1 host-swap Which way is better? Is there a real problem running 500 vms on single LUN? and would it be better to resort to 7 LUns so each VM is better isolated with each other?

    Read the article

  • Experience with Intel X25-M 160GB and Oracle

    - by derobert
    We're considering building an Oracle database with 12 Intel X25-M G2 160GB drives in software RAID10. It'd be running Linux. Database gets some very heavy write activity during the early morning data load, other than that it is mostly read-only (and the read load is fairly minimal). We're currently running on 11 150GB Velociraptors (also Linux software RAID10), and are hoping the X25-M will speed up the data load. We currently have redo on different disks than the rest of the data. I'm wondering a few things: Any experience with using X25-M drives for databases? The X25-E are unfortunately beyond our budget. Would it hurt to separate redo off to some magnetic (non-SSD) drives, say 2 (raid1) or 4 (raid10) Seagate Constellations?

    Read the article

  • How to re-add RAID-10 dropped drive?

    - by thiesdiggity
    I have a problem that I can't seem to solve. We have a Ubuntu server setup with RAID-10 and two of the drives dropped out of the array. When I try to re-add them using the following command: mdadm --manage --re-add /dev/md2 /dev/sdc1 I get the following error message: mdadm: Cannot open /dev/sdc1: Device or resource busy When I do a "cat /proc/mdstat" I get the following: Personalities : [linear] [multipath] [raid0] [raid1] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [r$ md2 : active raid10 sdb1[0] sdd1[3] 1953519872 blocks 64K chunks 2 near-copies [4/2] [U__U] md1 : active raid1 sda2[0] sdc2[1] 468853696 blocks [2/2] [UU] md0 : active raid1 sda1[0] sdc1[1] 19530688 blocks [2/2] [UU] unused devices: <none> When I run "/sbin/mdadm --detail /dev/md2" I get the following: /dev/md2: Version : 00.90 Creation Time : Mon Sep 5 23:41:13 2011 Raid Level : raid10 Array Size : 1953519872 (1863.02 GiB 2000.40 GB) Used Dev Size : 976759936 (931.51 GiB 1000.20 GB) Raid Devices : 4 Total Devices : 2 Preferred Minor : 2 Persistence : Superblock is persistent Update Time : Thu Oct 25 09:25:08 2012 State : active, degraded Active Devices : 2 Working Devices : 2 Failed Devices : 0 Spare Devices : 0 Layout : near=2, far=1 Chunk Size : 64K UUID : c6d87d27:aeefcb2e:d4453e2e:0b7266cb Events : 0.6688691 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State 0 8 17 0 active sync /dev/sdb1 1 0 0 1 removed 2 0 0 2 removed 3 8 49 3 active sync /dev/sdd1 Output of df -h is: Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/md1 441G 2.0G 416G 1% / none 32G 236K 32G 1% /dev tmpfs 32G 0 32G 0% /dev/shm none 32G 112K 32G 1% /var/run none 32G 0 32G 0% /var/lock none 32G 0 32G 0% /lib/init/rw tmpfs 64G 215M 63G 1% /mnt/vmware none 441G 2.0G 416G 1% /var/lib/ureadahead/debugfs /dev/mapper/RAID10VG-RAID10LV 1.8T 139G 1.6T 8% /mnt/RAID10 When I do a "fdisk -l" I can see all the drives needed for the RAID-10. The RAID-10 is part of the /dev/mapper, could that be the reason why the device is coming back as busy? Anyone have any suggestions on what I can try to get the drives back into the array? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Why is my RAID /dev/md1 showing up as /dev/md126? Is mdadm.conf being ignored?

    - by mmorris
    I created a RAID with: sudo mdadm --create --verbose /dev/md1 --level=mirror --raid-devices=2 /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdc1 sudo mdadm --create --verbose /dev/md2 --level=mirror --raid-devices=2 /dev/sdb2 /dev/sdc2 sudo mdadm --detail --scan returns: ARRAY /dev/md1 metadata=1.2 name=ion:1 UUID=aa1f85b0:a2391657:cfd38029:772c560e ARRAY /dev/md2 metadata=1.2 name=ion:2 UUID=528e5385:e61eaa4c:1db2dba7:44b556fb Which I appended it to /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf, see below: # mdadm.conf # # Please refer to mdadm.conf(5) for information about this file. # # by default (built-in), scan all partitions (/proc/partitions) and all # containers for MD superblocks. alternatively, specify devices to scan, using # wildcards if desired. #DEVICE partitions containers # auto-create devices with Debian standard permissions CREATE owner=root group=disk mode=0660 auto=yes # automatically tag new arrays as belonging to the local system HOMEHOST <system> # instruct the monitoring daemon where to send mail alerts MAILADDR root # definitions of existing MD arrays # This file was auto-generated on Mon, 29 Oct 2012 16:06:12 -0500 # by mkconf $Id$ ARRAY /dev/md1 metadata=1.2 name=ion:1 UUID=aa1f85b0:a2391657:cfd38029:772c560e ARRAY /dev/md2 metadata=1.2 name=ion:2 UUID=528e5385:e61eaa4c:1db2dba7:44b556fb cat /proc/mdstat returns: Personalities : [raid1] [linear] [multipath] [raid0] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [raid10] md2 : active raid1 sdb2[0] sdc2[1] 208629632 blocks super 1.2 [2/2] [UU] md1 : active raid1 sdb1[0] sdc1[1] 767868736 blocks super 1.2 [2/2] [UU] unused devices: <none> ls -la /dev | grep md returns: brw-rw---- 1 root disk 9, 1 Oct 30 11:06 md1 brw-rw---- 1 root disk 9, 2 Oct 30 11:06 md2 So I think all is good and I reboot. After the reboot, /dev/md1 is now /dev/md126 and /dev/md2 is now /dev/md127????? sudo mdadm --detail --scan returns: ARRAY /dev/md/ion:1 metadata=1.2 name=ion:1 UUID=aa1f85b0:a2391657:cfd38029:772c560e ARRAY /dev/md/ion:2 metadata=1.2 name=ion:2 UUID=528e5385:e61eaa4c:1db2dba7:44b556fb cat /proc/mdstat returns: Personalities : [raid1] [linear] [multipath] [raid0] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [raid10] md126 : active raid1 sdc2[1] sdb2[0] 208629632 blocks super 1.2 [2/2] [UU] md127 : active (auto-read-only) raid1 sdb1[0] sdc1[1] 767868736 blocks super 1.2 [2/2] [UU] unused devices: <none> ls -la /dev | grep md returns: drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 80 Oct 30 11:18 md brw-rw---- 1 root disk 9, 126 Oct 30 11:18 md126 brw-rw---- 1 root disk 9, 127 Oct 30 11:18 md127 All is not lost, I: sudo mdadm --stop /dev/md126 sudo mdadm --stop /dev/md127 sudo mdadm --assemble --verbose /dev/md1 /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdc1 sudo mdadm --assemble --verbose /dev/md2 /dev/sdb2 /dev/sdc2 and verify everything: sudo mdadm --detail --scan returns: ARRAY /dev/md1 metadata=1.2 name=ion:1 UUID=aa1f85b0:a2391657:cfd38029:772c560e ARRAY /dev/md2 metadata=1.2 name=ion:2 UUID=528e5385:e61eaa4c:1db2dba7:44b556fb cat /proc/mdstat returns: Personalities : [raid1] [linear] [multipath] [raid0] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [raid10] md2 : active raid1 sdb2[0] sdc2[1] 208629632 blocks super 1.2 [2/2] [UU] md1 : active raid1 sdb1[0] sdc1[1] 767868736 blocks super 1.2 [2/2] [UU] unused devices: <none> ls -la /dev | grep md returns: brw-rw---- 1 root disk 9, 1 Oct 30 11:26 md1 brw-rw---- 1 root disk 9, 2 Oct 30 11:26 md2 So once again, I think all is good and I reboot. Again, after the reboot, /dev/md1 is /dev/md126 and /dev/md2 is /dev/md127????? sudo mdadm --detail --scan returns: ARRAY /dev/md/ion:1 metadata=1.2 name=ion:1 UUID=aa1f85b0:a2391657:cfd38029:772c560e ARRAY /dev/md/ion:2 metadata=1.2 name=ion:2 UUID=528e5385:e61eaa4c:1db2dba7:44b556fb cat /proc/mdstat returns: Personalities : [raid1] [linear] [multipath] [raid0] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [raid10] md126 : active raid1 sdc2[1] sdb2[0] 208629632 blocks super 1.2 [2/2] [UU] md127 : active (auto-read-only) raid1 sdb1[0] sdc1[1] 767868736 blocks super 1.2 [2/2] [UU] unused devices: <none> ls -la /dev | grep md returns: drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 80 Oct 30 11:42 md brw-rw---- 1 root disk 9, 126 Oct 30 11:42 md126 brw-rw---- 1 root disk 9, 127 Oct 30 11:42 md127 What am I missing here?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6  | Next Page >