Search Results

Search found 1864 results on 75 pages for 'raid 1'.

Page 22/75 | < Previous Page | 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29  | Next Page >

  • How to remove a drive from a 2-drive RAID 5 array?

    - by DrSAR
    There is some information available on shape changes in RAID arrays but I'm a little nervous and would like confirmation: Problem: I have 2 500GB drive as software raid 5 (mdadm). I would like to free one of the two drives since RAID-redundancy is for wimps... Can I just mdadm --grow --array-size=1 followed by a mdadm --grow --raid-disks 1? This seems too simple. How would I specify which drive gets freed? Part of the reason for this maneuver is that I don't have additional space to run a backup.

    Read the article

  • Dell PERC 5 - RAID-10 keeps rebuilding drive 2 every day

    - by raid question
    I have a Dell PowerEdge 2950 with this card: RAID bus controller [0104]: Dell PowerEdge Expandable RAID controller 5 [1028:0015] and six disks in a RAID-10. I replaced drive 2, because it didn't show up, and then it started to rebuild itself: root@backup01:~# megaraidsas-status -- Arrays informations -- -- ID | Type | Size | Status a0d0 | RAID 10 | 5587GiB | DEGRADED -- Disks informations -- ID | Model | Status | Warnings a0e8s0 | ATA ST2000DM001-9YN1 1863GiB | online | errs: media:0 other:5393 a0e8s1 | ATA ST2000DM001-9YN1 1863GiB | online | errs: media:0 other:5394 a0e8s2 | ATA ST2000DM001-1E61 1863GiB | rebuild | errs: media:0 other:99 a0e8s3 | ATA ST2000DM001-9YN1 1863GiB | online | errs: media:0 other:5393 a0e8s4 | ATA ST2000DM001-9YN1 1863GiB | online | errs: media:0 other:5393 a0e8s5 | ATA ST2000DM001-9YN1 1863GiB | online | errs: media:0 other:5393 The rebuild finishes, then the virtual drive becomes optimal, and drive 2 goes online. Then once a day, drive 2 acts like it's been removed, and the rebuild starts all over again. How do I make this once a day rebuild stop? Event Description: Removed: PD 02(e1/s2) Event Description: Removed: PD 02(e1/s2) Info: enclPd=08, scsiType=0, portMap=04, sasAddr=1221000002000000,0000000000000000 Event Description: State change on VD 00/0 from OPTIMAL(3) to DEGRADED(2) Event Description: VD 00/0 is now DEGRADED1 Event Description: State change on PD 02(e1/s2) from ONLINE(18) to FAILED(11) Event Description: State change on PD 02(e1/s2) from FAILED(11) to UNCONFIGURED_BAD(1) Event Description: Background Initialization failed on VD 00/0 Event Description: Inserted: PD 02(e1/s2) Event Description: Inserted: PD 02(e1/s2) Info: enclPd=08, scsiType=0, portMap=04, sasAddr=1221000002000000,0000000000000000 Event Description: PD 02(e1/s2) is not a certified drive Event Description: State change on PD 02(e1/s2) Event Description: State change on PD 02(e1/s2) from UNCONFIGURED_GOOD(0) to OFFLINE(10) from UNCONFIGURED_BAD(1) to UNCONFIGURED_GOOD(0) Event Description: Rebuild automatically started on PD 02(e1/s2) Event Description: State change on PD 02(e1/s2) from OFFLINE(10) to REBUILD(14)

    Read the article

  • Is Error Recovery Control or TLER necessary for software RAID5 using LVM

    - by Vincent Davis
    I ave been told that for RAID configurations you don't what to use standard desktop drives because they when/if they enter a error recovery mode they might time out and get dropped from the raid. Is this true for LVM software RAID or this this a hardware RAID issue primarily?. We are running this server primarily as a backup server and would like to take advantage of the lower price of the desktop drives.

    Read the article

  • RAID1: can't replace faulty spare (marked again as 'faulty spare' within seconds)

    - by user212475
    I got a problem that I cannot solve: Our fileserver runs XUbuntu and 3 RAID1s. One has a problem since monday: it consists of sdb and sdc. sdb was marked as faulty by mdadm for unknown reasons. I used --remove to remove it from the RAID and then to add it by --add. All was fine, re-syncing started but never got above 0% and after a few seconds, sdb was again marked as 'faulty spare' (and therefore the RAID degraded, but clean). So I saved the first 512 byte of the old sdb to a file, bought a new HDD of same size (4TB), shut down the computer and replaced sdb physically, switched the computer back on and wrote the 512 byte back to the new drive to have the same partition info as the old drive (both are the same type, from same company). But the new drive shows the same behaviour as the old: I can add, re-syncing starts and after a few seconds its marked as 'faulty spare'. Here exactly what i did: mdadm --remove /dev/md/1 /dev/sdb maadm --detail /dev/md/1 gives me: /dev/md/1: Version : 1.2 Creation Time : Sat Jun 8 22:32:05 2013 Raid Level : raid1 Array Size : 3906887360 (3725.90 GiB 4000.65 GB) Used Dev Size : 3906887360 (3725.90 GiB 4000.65 GB) Raid Devices : 2 Total Devices : 1 Persistence : Superblock is persistent Update Time : Thu Nov 7 06:56:13 2013 State : clean, degraded Active Devices : 1 Working Devices : 1 Failed Devices : 0 Spare Devices : 0 Name : File-Server:1 (local to host File-Server) UUID : 44ed561f:b733e946:e69820f4:aba9b223 Events : 2424 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State 0 0 0 0 removed 1 8 32 1 active sync /dev/sdc mdadm --add /dev/md/1 /dev/sdb mdadm --detail /dev/md/1 gives me: Version : 1.2 Creation Time : Sat Jun 8 22:32:05 2013 Raid Level : raid1 Array Size : 3906887360 (3725.90 GiB 4000.65 GB) Used Dev Size : 3906887360 (3725.90 GiB 4000.65 GB) Raid Devices : 2 Total Devices : 2 Persistence : Superblock is persistent Update Time : Thu Nov 7 06:57:49 2013 State : clean, degraded, recovering Active Devices : 1 Working Devices : 1 Failed Devices : 1 Spare Devices : 0 Rebuild Status : 0% complete Name : File-Server:1 (local to host File-Server) UUID : 44ed561f:b733e946:e69820f4:aba9b223 Events : 2431 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State 2 8 16 0 faulty spare rebuilding /dev/sdb 1 8 32 1 active sync /dev/sdc and after a few seconds: /dev/md/1: Version : 1.2 Creation Time : Sat Jun 8 22:32:05 2013 Raid Level : raid1 Array Size : 3906887360 (3725.90 GiB 4000.65 GB) Used Dev Size : 3906887360 (3725.90 GiB 4000.65 GB) Raid Devices : 2 Total Devices : 2 Persistence : Superblock is persistent Update Time : Thu Nov 7 06:57:50 2013 State : clean, degraded Active Devices : 1 Working Devices : 1 Failed Devices : 1 Spare Devices : 0 Name : File-Server:1 (local to host File-Server) UUID : 44ed561f:b733e946:e69820f4:aba9b223 Events : 2436 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State 0 0 0 0 removed 1 8 32 1 active sync /dev/sdc 2 8 16 - faulty spare /dev/sdb same behaviour if I zero the superblock (mdadm --zero-superblock /dev/sdb) before adding sdb. I do all commands as root and the system holds 3 more 4TB drives, ie the mainboard can handle them. The old harddrive was checked for errors using badblocks, but all is fine. Does anybody have any idea, what the problem is?

    Read the article

  • lvm disappeared after disc replacement on raid10

    - by user142295
    here my problem: I am running ubuntu 12.04 on a raid10 (4 disks), on top of which I installed an lvm with two volume groups (one for /, one for /home). The layout of the disks are as follows: Disk /dev/sda: 1500.3 GB, 1500301910016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 182401 cylinders, total 2930277168 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x0003f3b6 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 * 63 481949 240943+ 83 Linux /dev/sda2 481950 2910640634 1455079342+ fd Linux raid autodetect /dev/sda3 2910640635 2930272064 9815715 82 Linux swap / Solaris Disk /dev/sdb: 1500.3 GB, 1500301910016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 182401 cylinders, total 2930277168 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x00069785 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdb1 63 2910158684 1455079311 fd Linux raid autodetect /dev/sdb2 2910158685 2930272064 10056690 82 Linux swap / Solaris Disk /dev/sdc: 1500.3 GB, 1500301910016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 182401 cylinders, total 2930277168 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x00000000 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdc1 63 2910158684 1455079311 fd Linux raid autodetect /dev/sdc2 2910158685 2930272064 10056690 82 Linux swap / Solaris Disk /dev/sdd: 1500.3 GB, 1500301910016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 182401 cylinders, total 2930277168 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x000f14de Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdd1 63 2910158684 1455079311 fd Linux raid autodetect /dev/sdd2 2910158685 2930272064 10056690 82 Linux swap / Solaris The first disk (/dev/sda) contains the /boot partition on /dev/sda1. I use grub2 to boot the system off this partition. On top of this raid10 I installed two volume groups, one for /, one for /home. This system worked well, I even exchanged two disks during the last two years. It always worked. But not this time. For the first time, /dev/sda broke. I do not know if this is an issue – I know I would have struggled anyways to overcome the problem with /boot installed on that disk and grub2 installed on the mbr of /dev/sda. Anyways, I did what I always did: start knoppix fire up the raid sudo mdadm --examine -scan which returns ARRAY /dev/md127 UUID=0dbf4558:1a943464:132783e8:19cdff95 start it up sudo mdadm --assemble /dev/md127 fail the failing disk (smart event) sudo mdadm /dev/md127 --fail /dev/sda2 remove the failing disk sudo mdadm /dev/md127 --remove /dev/sda2 stop the raid sudo mdadm -S /dev/md127 take out the disk replace it with a new one create the same partitions as on the failling one add it to the raid sudo mdadm --assemble /dev/md127 sudo mdadm /dev/md127 --add /dev/sda2 wait 4 hours All looks fine: cat /proc/mdstat returns: Personalities : [raid10] md127 : active raid10 sda2[0] sdd1[3] sdc1[2] sdb1[1] 2910158464 blocks 64K chunks 2 near-copies [4/4] [UUUU] unused devices: <none> and sudo mdadm --detail /dev/md127 returns /dev/md127: Version : 0.90 Creation Time : Wed Jun 10 13:08:46 2009 Raid Level : raid10 Array Size : 2910158464 (2775.34 GiB 2980.00 GB) Used Dev Size : 1455079232 (1387.67 GiB 1490.00 GB) Raid Devices : 4 Total Devices : 4 Preferred Minor : 127 Persistence : Superblock is persistent Update Time : Thu Mar 21 16:27:40 2013 State : clean Active Devices : 4 Working Devices : 4 Failed Devices : 0 Spare Devices : 0 Layout : near=2 Chunk Size : 64K UUID : 0dbf4558:1a943464:132783e8:19cdff95 (local to host Microknoppix) Events : 0.4824680 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State 0 8 2 0 active sync /dev/sda2 1 8 17 1 active sync /dev/sdb1 2 8 33 2 active sync /dev/sdc1 3 8 49 3 active sync /dev/sdd1 However, there is no trace of the volume groups. Rebooting into knoppix does not help Restarting the old system (I actually replugged and re-added the failing disk for that – the system begins to start, but then fails to see the / partition – no wonder if the volume group is gone) does not help. sudo vgscan, sudo vgdisplay, sudo lvs, sudo lvdisplay, sudo vgscan –mknodes all returned No volume groups found. I am completely at a loss. Can anyone tell me if and how I can recover my data? Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Why do I bother with RAID 10 ?

    - by GrumpyOldDBA
    Before I post anything I just want to clarify what I mean by RAID 10 , this is sets of mirrored pairs that have been striped as against a RAID 0 which has been mirrored. I've just had a disk failure in the data array for one of my dev servers, it's an eight disk raid 8, no real worries, replace disk and off we go - but no - the HP engineers told me from the diagnostics ( done to ensure I got the right replacement under warranty ) that not only had a disk failed but I'd lost all the data...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Raid 1 array won't assemble after power outage. How do I fix this ext4 mirror?

    - by Forkrul Assail
    Two ext4 drives on Raid 1 with mdadm won't reassemble after the power went out for an extended period (UPS drained). After turning the machine back on, mdadm said that the array was degraded, after which it took about 2 days for a full resync, which completed without problems. On trying to remount the array I get: mount: you must specify the filesystem type cat /etc/fstab lines relevant to setup: /dev/md127 /media/mediapool ext4 defaults 0 0 dmesg | tail (on trying to mount) says: [ 1050.818782] EXT3-fs (md127): error: can't find ext3 filesystem on dev md127. [ 1050.849214] EXT4-fs (md127): VFS: Can't find ext4 filesystem [ 1050.944781] FAT-fs (md127): invalid media value (0x00) [ 1050.944782] FAT-fs (md127): Can't find a valid FAT filesystem [ 1058.272787] EXT2-fs (md127): error: can't find an ext2 filesystem on dev md127. cat /proc/mdstat says: Personalities : [raid1] [linear] [multipath] [raid0] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [raid10] md127 : active (auto-read-only) raid1 sdj[2] sdi[0] 2930135360 blocks super 1.2 [2/2] [UU] unused devices: <none> fsck /dev/md127 says: fsck from util-linux 2.20.1 e2fsck 1.42 (29-Nov-2011) fsck.ext2: Superblock invalid, trying backup blocks... fsck.ext2: Bad magic number in super-block while trying to open /dev/md127 The superblock could not be read or does not describe a correct ext2 filesystem. If the device is valid and it really contains an ext2 filesystem (and not swap or ufs or something else), then the superblock is corrupt, and you might try running e2fsck with an alternate superblock: e2fsck -b 8193 <device> mdadm -E /dev/sdi gives me: /dev/sdi: Magic : a92b4efc Version : 1.2 Feature Map : 0x0 Array UUID : 37ac1824:eb8a21f6:bd5afd6d:96da6394 Name : sojourn:33 Creation Time : Sat Nov 10 10:43:52 2012 Raid Level : raid1 Raid Devices : 2 Avail Dev Size : 5860271016 (2794.40 GiB 3000.46 GB) Array Size : 2930135360 (2794.39 GiB 3000.46 GB) Used Dev Size : 5860270720 (2794.39 GiB 3000.46 GB) Data Offset : 262144 sectors Super Offset : 8 sectors State : clean Device UUID : 3e6e9a4f:6c07ab3d:22d47fce:13cecfd0 Update Time : Tue Nov 13 20:34:18 2012 Checksum : f7d10db9 - correct Events : 27 Device Role : Active device 0 Array State : AA ('A' == active, '.' == missing) boot@boot ~ $ sudo mdadm -E /dev/sdj /dev/sdj: Magic : a92b4efc Version : 1.2 Feature Map : 0x0 Array UUID : 37ac1824:eb8a21f6:bd5afd6d:96da6394 Name : sojourn:33 Creation Time : Sat Nov 10 10:43:52 2012 Raid Level : raid1 Raid Devices : 2 Avail Dev Size : 5860271016 (2794.40 GiB 3000.46 GB) Array Size : 2930135360 (2794.39 GiB 3000.46 GB) Used Dev Size : 5860270720 (2794.39 GiB 3000.46 GB) Data Offset : 262144 sectors Super Offset : 8 sectors State : clean Device UUID : 7fb84af4:e9295f7b:ede61f27:bec0cb57 Update Time : Tue Nov 13 20:34:18 2012 Checksum : b9d17fef - correct Events : 27 Device Role : Active device 1 Array State : AA ('A' == active, '.' == missing) machine@user ~ dmesg | tail [ 61.785866] init: alsa-restore main process (2736) terminated with status 99 [ 68.433548] eth0: no IPv6 routers present [ 534.142511] EXT4-fs (sdi): ext4_check_descriptors: Block bitmap for group 0 not in group (block 2838187772)! [ 534.142518] EXT4-fs (sdi): group descriptors corrupted! [ 546.418780] EXT2-fs (sdi): error: couldn't mount because of unsupported optional features (240) [ 549.654127] EXT3-fs (sdi): error: couldn't mount because of unsupported optional features (240) Since this is Raid 1 it was suggested that I try and mount or fsck the drives separately. After a long fsck on one drive, it ended with this as tail: Illegal double indirect block (2298566437) in inode 39717736. CLEARED. Illegal block #4231180 (2611866932) in inode 39717736. CLEARED. Error storing directory block information (inode=39717736, block=0, num=1092368): Memory allocation failed Recreate journal? yes Creating journal (32768 blocks): Done. *** journal has been re-created - filesystem is now ext3 again *** The drive however still doesn't want to mount: dmesg | tail [ 170.674659] md: export_rdev(sdc) [ 170.675152] md: export_rdev(sdc) [ 195.275288] md: export_rdev(sdc) [ 195.275876] md: export_rdev(sdc) [ 1338.540092] CE: hpet increased min_delta_ns to 30169 nsec [26125.734105] EXT4-fs (sdc): ext4_check_descriptors: Checksum for group 0 failed (43502!=37987) [26125.734115] EXT4-fs (sdc): group descriptors corrupted! [26182.325371] EXT3-fs (sdc): error: couldn't mount because of unsupported optional features (240) [27083.316519] EXT4-fs (sdc): ext4_check_descriptors: Checksum for group 0 failed (43502!=37987) [27083.316530] EXT4-fs (sdc): group descriptors corrupted! Please help me fix this. I never in my wildest nightmares thought a complete mirror would die this badly. Am I missing something? Suggestions on fixing this? Could someone explain why it would resync after the powerout, only to seemingly nuke the drive? Thanks for reading. Any help much appreciated. I've tried everything I can think of, including booting and filesystem checking with SystemRescue and Ubuntu liveboot discs.

    Read the article

  • LSI 9260-8i w/ 6 256gb SSDs - RAID 5, 6, 10, or bad idea overall?

    - by Michael Pearson
    We're provisioning a new production server for our reasonably busy website. Our choice of host have available a 6 drive configuration with a LSI 9260-8i card. My initial thought was to fill all six bays with SSDs (Intel 520 256gb) and set them up in RAID. Good, bad, or terrible idea? Can the card handle it? Should we be using RAID 5, 6 or 10? This would be the first time the provider have filled all six slots for this rackmount with SSDs, so they're a bit hesitant. I'm wondering if somebody else with this card has done something similar in a production environment. We do about 43gb of writes per day and currently use about 300gb of storage. The server acts as webserver, database, and image store for approx 1 million files. The plan is to underprovision the SSDs by approximately 10% to 20% to increase their overall lifespan & performance. The fallback option is 2x480gb SSDs in RAID 1 and another 2x1TB HDDs in RAID 1. The motivation behind this is that the server rental cost difference between 2xSSDs and 6xSSDs is minimal (compared to the overall cost of the rental). We do not have any special high-IOPs requirements. However, if the configuration is known to work, I don't see a good reason to not use it and not have to worry about having separate 'fast and small' and 'slow and large' disks.

    Read the article

  • How to properly remove disk from PERC 6/i RAID controller ?

    - by Stefano Borini
    I have a Dell T710, coming with PERC 6/i RAID controller. The current raid has 2x500 GB hard drives (with the OS), and 6x1000 GB hard drives (in RAID-6, currently empty). I would like to take one 1000 GB disk physically out to keep as an immediate spare in case of a crash, and configure the remaining 5x1000 GB in a single VD RAID-6. This is all nice and clean and works, until I realized that the display on the machine reports the lack of the 8th disk as an error. It's marked as error, but appears to be a warning, since the machine is fully functional. My question is: what is the best way to keep one disk as a spare out of the array? should I disassemble the disk from the cradle and insert the empty cradle in the array ? Or should I just silence the error in the display in some way (how?). I know that what I am doing sounds pretty strange, but here is academia and having a spare disk available could take weeks. Better to have one ready in my drawer for any emergency.

    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

  • Problem with setting up RAID 5 on FreeNAS

    - by Benjy23
    I've been running FreeNAS for a while now. Hardware is 1.8 GHz Celeron, RAM 1 GB. SATA card is Via - I am not sure about the model. It's 2 ports and I have 6 x 1.5 TB hard drives. All ran OK while running on 1.5 TB, no RAID. I'm now trying to create a RAID 5 with my 6 hard drives. Software RAID. Is it normal for it to take roughly up to 2 weeks just to build the RAID? Sorry, I'm very new to implementing RAID and googling doesn't tell much other than it takes a long time. Also the RAID building process seems to fail many times. Going to degraded. I suspect it's because 4 of my hard drives are connected to my motherboard and the other 2 are connected to my SATA card. What's your take? I'm considering 2 options now. Either get a 8 port SATA card and attach all the hard drives to it. Or get a RAID controller 8 portcard which is probably going to be more pricey. Also how do you access hardware RAID through FreeNAS? I like how FreeNAS emails you should your harddrive fails. Can this be done as well with hardware RAID?

    Read the article

  • Is RAID 0 or JBOD better for home media server?

    - by Donald Hughes
    I have an external two-bay drive enclosure (the OWC Mercury Elite-AL Pro) connected to a Mac Mini (my home media server) over FireWire 800. I'm streaming media to other computers in the house over wired gigabit. I have two 1.5 TB drives that I'm using independently right now. The media is on one, and I'm mirroring the files to the other drive at night as a backup. But as I approach filling up the drive I'm wanting to span those two drives together to give me a total of about 3 TB, and then buy another drive for backups. The external enclosure supports both RAID 0 and JBOD, but I'm not clear on which would be better in this situation. Would RAID 0 provide any performance improvements over JBOD for streaming video (possibly several streams at once? How does each affect the MTBF of the drives? In general, should I choose RAID 0, JBOD, or keep them independent?

    Read the article

  • Is a "failed" RAID 5 disk really no good?

    - by GregH
    This is my first venture in to setting up RAID on my home system. After installing 3 x 1TB drives in RAID 5, everything was running well for about 10 days. Then, the Intel Rapid Storage Technology software that monitors the disks and RAID on my system, told me that I had a failed drive. I marked the drive as good, and the array rebuilt. Then a day or so later I got a notification again, that the drive failed. I'm just wondering if this drive really is no good or if there is something I can do to get it working again? Or, do I just need to return it to the store where I bought it and get a replacement?

    Read the article

  • Does multiple files in SQL Server when using RAID help reduce conflicts in growth and file-locking?

    - by Dr Giles M
    I've been reading around and get the impression that if you are using RAID then using multiple SQL Server files within a filegroup won't yeild any more improvements, and the benefits are purely administrative (if you started to run out of space or wanted to partition off data into managable chunks for backups/balancing the data around your big server room). However, being a reasonably savvy software person, it's not unthinkable to hypothesise that, even for smaller databases that SQL Server will perform growth and locking operations (for writes) on a LOGICAL file basis, so even if you are using RAID, it seems to make sense to have multiple files in a file group to balance I/O, or does the time taken to reconstruct the data from distributed filegroups outweigh the benefits of reduced locking? I'm also aware that the behaviour and benefits may be different for tables/indeces/log. Is there a good site that distinguishes the benefits of multiple files when RAID is already in place?

    Read the article

  • What should I know before I set up RAID 6 on Linux?

    - by Dan Ellis
    I just ordered five 1TB drives to install as a RAID 6 array in a Linux server (keeping the existing 1TB drive as a boot disk). I want to use Linux MD for RAID rather than a RAID card, to avoid lock-in. The intended use is for storing filesystems for Xen development environments and an AFP server for iPhoto/Aperture/Lightroom. What things should I know before I set it up? For example, what would be a good choice of filesystem, and what chunk size should I use?

    Read the article

  • Can I move a one drive RAID 0 array on a PERC 6 to another server?

    - by zippy
    We have a Dell Poweredge 2970 with a PERC 6/i RAID controller. We have a one drive RAID 0 array (we wanted to add the drive as a JBOD but the PERC forces you to create an array to access it from the PERC). Can we take the one drive RAID 0 and move it to a new server (one that doesn't have a PERC)? Since there's only one drive in the "array" there's no striping going on...the only issue would seem to be if the PERC has some metadata on the drive that would prevent Windows from reading it. Does anyone have any experience with this scenario?

    Read the article

  • Build and migrated to software raid (mdadm) on GPT disk, now can't assemble array

    - by John H
    mdadm, gpt issues, unrecognized partitions. Simplified question: How do I get mdadm to recognize GPT partitions? I have been attempting to convert/copy my Ubuntu 11.10 OS from a single drive to software raid 1. I have done similar in the past, but in this case, I was adding in a drive that has been configured for GPT and I tried to work with that without fully looking into the implications. Currently, I have a non-booting mdadm RAID 1 array of /dev/md127 (the OS assigned that and it keeps picking up). I am booting off of live USB keys, currently System Rescue CD from sysresccd. While gdisk and parted can see all the partitions, most of the OS utilities do not, including mdadm. My main goal is just to make the raid array accessible so I can get pull the data and start fresh (without using GPT). /dev/md127 /dev/sda /dev/sda1 <- GPT type partition /dev/sda1 <- exists within the GPT part, member of md127 /dev/sda2 <- exists within the GPT part, empty /dev/sdb /dev/sdb1 <- GPT type partition /dev/sdb1 <- exists within the GPT part, member of md127 History: POINT A: The original OS was install on sda (actually /dev/sda6). I used a the Ubuntu live usb to add sdb. I got warning from fdisk about GPT so I used gdisk to create a raid partition (sdb1) and mdadm to create a raid1 mirror with a missing drive. I had many issues getting this working (including being unable to get grub to install) but I eventually got it to boot using grub on sda and /dev/md127 off of sdb. So at point A, I had copied my OS from sda6 to md127 on sdb. I then booted into a rescue mode and attempted to get a bootloader onto sdb, which failed. I then discovered my mistake: I had installed the raid onto sdb instead of sdb1, essentially overwriting the sdb1 partition. POINT B: I now had two copies of my data- one on md127/sdb, and one on sda. I destroyed data on sda and created a new GPT table on sda. I then created sda1 for the raid array, and sda2 for a scratch partition. I added sda1 into the raid array and let it rebuild. md127 now covered /dev/sdb and /dev/sda1 as fully active and synced. POINT C: I rebooted onto linux rescue again and was still able to access the raid array. I then removed /dev/sdb from the array and created /dev/sdb1 for the raid. I added sdb1 to the array and let it sync. I was able to mount and access /dev/md127 without issues. Once it completed, both /dev/sda1 and /dev/sdb1 were GPT partitions and actively syncing. POINT D (current): I rebooted again to test if the array would boot and grub failed to load. I booted off of my live thumb drive and found that I can no longer assemble the raid array. mdadm doesn't see the required partitions. -- root@freshdesk /root % uname -a Linux freshdesk 3.0.24-std251-amd64 #2 SMP Sat Mar 17 12:08:55 UTC 2012 x86_64 AMD Athlon(tm) II X4 645 Processor AuthenticAMD GNU/Linux === /proc/partitions and parted look good: root@freshdesk /root % cat /proc/partitions major minor #blocks name 7 0 301788 loop0 8 0 976762584 sda 8 1 732579840 sda1 8 2 244181703 sda2 8 16 732574584 sdb 8 17 732573543 sdb1 8 32 7876607 sdc 8 33 7873349 sdc1 (parted) print all Model: ATA ST31000528AS (scsi) Disk /dev/sda: 1000GB Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B Partition Table: gpt Number Start End Size File system Name Flags 1 1049kB 750GB 750GB ext4 2 750GB 1000GB 250GB Linux/Windows data Model: ATA SAMSUNG HD753LJ (scsi) Disk /dev/sdb: 750GB Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B Partition Table: gpt Number Start End Size File system Name Flags 1 1049kB 750GB 750GB ext4 Linux RAID raid Model: SanDisk SanDisk Cruzer (scsi) Disk /dev/sdc: 8066MB Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B Partition Table: msdos Number Start End Size Type File system Flags 1 31.7kB 8062MB 8062MB primary fat32 boot, lba === # no sda2, and I double the sdb1 is the one shown in parted root@freshdesk /root % blkid /dev/loop0: TYPE="squashfs" /dev/sda1: UUID="75dd6c2d-f0a8-4302-9da4-792cc7d72355" TYPE="ext4" /dev/sdc1: LABEL="PENDRIVE" UUID="1102-3720" TYPE="vfat" /dev/sdb1: UUID="2dd89f15-65bb-ff88-e368-bf24bd0fce41" TYPE="linux_raid_member" root@freshdesk /root % mdadm -E /dev/sda1 mdadm: No md superblock detected on /dev/sda1. # this is probably a result of me attempting to force the array up, putting superblocks on the GPT partition root@freshdesk /root % mdadm -E /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdb1: Magic : a92b4efc Version : 0.90.00 UUID : 2dd89f15:65bbff88:e368bf24:bd0fce41 Creation Time : Fri Mar 30 19:25:30 2012 Raid Level : raid1 Used Dev Size : 732568320 (698.63 GiB 750.15 GB) Array Size : 732568320 (698.63 GiB 750.15 GB) Raid Devices : 2 Total Devices : 2 Preferred Minor : 127 Update Time : Sat Mar 31 12:39:38 2012 State : clean Active Devices : 1 Working Devices : 2 Failed Devices : 1 Spare Devices : 1 Checksum : a7d038b3 - correct Events : 20195 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State this 2 8 17 2 spare /dev/sdb1 0 0 8 1 0 active sync /dev/sda1 1 1 0 0 1 faulty removed 2 2 8 17 2 spare /dev/sdb1 === root@freshdesk /root % mdadm -A /dev/md127 /dev/sda1 /dev/sdb1 mdadm: no recogniseable superblock on /dev/sda1 mdadm: /dev/sda1 has no superblock - assembly aborted root@freshdesk /root % mdadm -A /dev/md127 /dev/sdb1 mdadm: cannot open device /dev/sdb1: Device or resource busy mdadm: /dev/sdb1 has no superblock - assembly aborted

    Read the article

  • How to move an existing Win7 setup to a RAID-1 array?

    - by Matthew Scharley
    Currently I have a the following setup: Drive A/B: Identical HDD's Drive C: 2TB external drive with plenty of space currently. Hardware RAID controller Currently I have Drive A which is my boot drive (Win7), and Drive C which is a data drive, and Drive B which I only recently received and is blank. What is the best way of moving off of Drive A, setting up the hardware RAID and then migrating my data back onto the RAID array? I'm proficient with Linux, but I'm not sure if I can get away with simply using dd here. There is currently enough free space on Drive C to take 5-6 copies of a disk image of Drive A, so space isn't an issue.

    Read the article

  • How do I put back different SCSI hard drives into their original RAID arrays across different servers?

    - by Edgar
    I have potentially a big mess in my hands: I received today a box with several hard drives that used to be connected to different servers each one of them using an unknown - at least as of right now- RAID configuration. Regretfully, these are not marked and I'm not sure how to go about putting them back into their original servers. Currently I don't have much more information: I don't know what type of array was being used on each instance and I don't have any specifics about the RAID controller originally used on each one of the servers (currently these servers are at a remote location with no easy access). Is there a way to sort through this mess? What would be the consequences of using trial and error to go about it? This might be a very basic question but I don't have much experience dealing with RAID arrays.

    Read the article

  • Is there a way to obtain a Dell server's RAID configuration/level using only winrm/wsman? (ESXi servers)

    - by EGr
    I've seen videos describing how to configure RAID using wsman/winrm commands run against a server's iDRAC, but I can't seem to find anything that will just give me the current configuration and RAID levels. Is this possible? What uri would I use? If it matters, this is being run against M610s. Edit: If there is an easier way to obtain this information by running a script against the iDRAC, I'm not opposed to switching my methods. EDIT: The server is running ESXi, so if there is a way to obtain this through the vSphere client or PowerCLI, I can do that too. Overall, I just need a way to obtain the RAID configuration for multiple servers without having to query against the actual server (eg: via the iDRAC).

    Read the article

  • How to setup guest-os raid 1 with vmware esxi?

    - by jM2.me
    In my last questions I didn't make myself clear, so I will do my best to explain it. I have a server with esxi 5 installed on it. I am not able to setup hardware raid atm, and need a workaround. From previous question I have been told to setup a raid for guest-os (don't confuse with hardware/software raid for/on host). I wasn't able to find any information about this, nor found any option in guest-os bios. Help appreciated. Edit: I have two drives setup as datastores. Each drive/datastore will host one image file for guest os

    Read the article

  • HP Proliant DL160 G6 - Hardware RAID card to get? [closed]

    - by zhuanyi
    I have bought a DL160 G6 server (Product number: 490427R-001 ) and it does not come with a hardware RAID card. I am trying to set up a VMWare Esxi server and as such I would need a hardware RAID card. I am just wondering if there is any card that would fit into the chassis? Would a P200i fits? How about a P400? Also, would there be any non-HP RAID card that will do the magic too? I have 4 SATA 160GB hard drives already plugged in. Thanks a lot!

    Read the article

  • Merge Two Folders To Act As One (Software Raid 0?)

    - by Dboy1612
    Using Windows 7, I'm trying to setup what I've come to call a "Software Raid of Folders", not completely sure it's the right term, but I'm sure anyone who knows the true term will understand what I'm getting at. I have two folders, on two seperate harddrive, I would like to "merge" these folders while keeping them on seperate harddrive so they act as one folder. Example: Music and Videos are to be merged together to a new folder called "Merged" Music runs off of Harddrive 1 Videos runs off of Harddrive 2 Anything new saved inside Merged is saved within Videos that runs off of Harddrive 2 Now you see how I came up with the term "Software Raid", it's like an average RAID 0 setup, but instead I want to do it with just two specific folders on two different drives within Windows. Any help on this is apprecieated!

    Read the article

  • If a raid controller changes, are the drives still usable without re-formatting?

    - by Jeremy
    I've been wanting to do a raid 1 setup in my home with a pair of sata drives. Someone told me that if the controller fails, you can't just get a new controller because you'll have to reformat the drives. Or is that true only in some implementations? I was originally just looking at an onboard raid controller, or an entry level nas drvice like the intel SS4200-E, but If the hardware (controller) ever fails, will I be out of luck accessing the data if I can't get the exact same hardware to replace it?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29  | Next Page >