Search Results

Search found 303 results on 13 pages for 'raid1'.

Page 4/13 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Exchange 2007 | Mailbox DB Size 180GB

    - by rihatum
    Hi All, I have a Exchange 2007 SP1 server running on Windows 2008 6 HD Drives in a RAID-1 OS, DB, Logs on separate RAID-1 Disks Size of the Mailbox Database is 183GB and increasing We only have First Storage Group and Second Storage Group There is no more space on the server to install new Physical Disks and create a Storage Group Q - Can I resize the RAID-1 Partition where the DB is ? Q - Any other suggestions as to how I can decrease the Mailbox DB Size ? Will be grateful for your suggestions on this. Kind Regards

    Read the article

  • Why did my zpool replace never finish and what should I do now?

    - by Josh
    I have a ZFS zpool with two disks in a mirror configuration, da0 and da1. da1 failed, and so I replaced it with da2 using zpool replace BearCow da1 da2 This ran for a few hours, during which zpool status showed that the array was being resilvered. When that finished, zpool status showed that the resilver was completed, but the array was still degraded... I tried a zpool scrub and a zpool clear, but the array still shows as degraded: [root@chef] ~# zpool status BearCow pool: BearCow state: DEGRADED scrub: scrub completed after 0h20m with 0 errors on Tue Oct 9 16:13:27 2012 config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM BearCow DEGRADED 0 0 0 mirror DEGRADED 0 0 0 da0 ONLINE 0 0 0 replacing DEGRADED 0 0 0 da1 OFFLINE 0 0 0 da2 ONLINE 0 0 0 errors: No known data errors I can't zpool replace BearCow da1 da2 anymore because da2 is already a member of BearCow... This is FreeBSD (FreeNAS) running ZFS pool version 15. How do I get my array to show as healthy again?

    Read the article

  • Upgrade no raid server to raid

    - by AZee
    I have just learned that our PDC has a single drive with 2 partitions. I also know that this drive has bad blocks as recorded in the event log. What I would like to do is to convert this to a RAID solution with a nice balance between economy and performance. I will admit that I have only configured servers with RAID from scratch, and have no experience upgrading an existing system into a RAID system. In fact, I'm not sure it is even possible. Since this is the PDC for 350+ workstations downtime is important. I'd like to hear from other System Administators how they would tackle this and their recommendations for all devices. At this time it seems to me that I can replace the existing drive and then restore from backup or install a controller, drives, configure the RAID an basically start from scratch. Thank you for taking your time. ~AZee

    Read the article

  • Resize a RAID 1 volume on OSX Snow Leopard - how? (Note: software raid)

    - by Emmel
    I've scoured the Internet in search of an answer to this question, and as usual with OSX-related topics, I often don't find any deep-dive technical explanations sufficient enough to feel confident doing dangerous things. Here is my question: I have a Mac Pro, running OSX 10.6.2. I have, as my main root/boot disk, a RAID 1 volume called "Mirror1". Mirror1 is comprised of two 1 TB disks. Mirror1, however, is fixed at 640 GB. That's because, I originally took a 640GB disk, bought a terabyte disk, mirrored it (using diskutil appleraid enable...), when it synced I removed the 640GB and replaced it with a second 1 TB disk, and synced again. Voila! A single 640 GB replaced by two 1 TB disks in a mirror.. Actually, no. There's still something missing from the equation: Mirror1 needs to be expanded from 640GB to 1 TB to match the partition sizes on each of those disks. How do I do this? Perhaps the diskutil output will help: -> diskutil list /dev/disk0 #: TYPE NAME SIZE IDENTIFIER 0: GUID_partition_scheme *1.0 TB disk0 1: EFI 209.7 MB disk0s1 2: Apple_RAID 999.9 GB disk0s2 3: Apple_Boot Boot OSX 134.2 MB disk0s3 /dev/disk1 #: TYPE NAME SIZE IDENTIFIER 0: GUID_partition_scheme *1.0 TB disk1 1: EFI 209.7 MB disk1s1 2: Apple_RAID 999.9 GB disk1s2 3: Apple_Boot Boot OSX 134.2 MB disk1s3 /dev/disk2 #: TYPE NAME SIZE IDENTIFIER 0: GUID_partition_scheme *640.1 GB disk2 1: EFI 209.7 MB disk2s1 2: Apple_HFS Mac Disk 2 536.7 GB disk2s2 3: Microsoft Basic Data BOOTCAMP 103.1 GB disk2s3 /dev/disk3 #: TYPE NAME SIZE IDENTIFIER 0: Apple_HFS Mirror1 *639.8 GB disk3 -> diskutil appleraid list AppleRAID sets (1 found) =============================================================================== Name: Macintosh HD Unique ID: 1953F864-B474-4EB6-8E69-41834EBD0247 Type: Mirror Status: Online Size: 639.8 GB (639791038464 Bytes) Rebuild: manual Device Node: disk3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # Device Node UUID Status ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0 disk1s2 25109BAE-5697-40EA-B612-0217851444F7 Online 1 disk0s2 11B83AB0-8148-4DB6-8761-DEF08C855F8D Online =============================================================================== Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • 2 HDs in RAID 1 with 2 partitions ?

    - by Prix
    Hi, i am not very familiar with raid partitons and am not even sure if this is the right place to ask about it, but i hope that if it is not that some one can point me on the right direction. This is my situation, i have 2 500 GB hds and a 3ware pci-e hardware for raid and i wanted to make a RAID 1 but i dont know if i can make more then one partition for it, for instance: MAIN HD: os partition: 100GB data partition: rest of left size and make the RAID 1 either work on all the HD or just on the data partition of it. that is on windows xp sp3 and the 3ware allows bootable raid.

    Read the article

  • centos freezes with this error kernel: ata1.00: exception Emask 0x0 SAct 0x7fffffff SErr 0x0 action 0x0

    - by lakshman
    0 down vote favorite share [fb] share [tw] I am using centOs 5.5 version with raid 1 configuration the server freezes and goes to non response . the only thing i found on messages file is kernel: ata1.00: exception Emask 0x0 SAct 0x7fffffff SErr 0x0 action 0x0 The server is built recently Please let us know what is the problem the hard disk details are Model Number: ST500NM0011 Serial Number: Z1M02LT7 Firmware Revision: SN02

    Read the article

  • From which plex am I booted from on raid?

    - by rumburak
    I have a server with mirrored boot volume. It is software raid 1 in Windows Server 2008 R2. I do not have physical access to the server. I am looking for a way to check which disk is a boot drive. I need a way to check it from os. How can I do that ? EDIT: I know how to do that, but I dont think its proper way. From diskpart I can break mirror: select volume 0 break disk=0 And Windows will only allow me to do that on not current boot disk. I want to check which one is boot without breaking mirroring.

    Read the article

  • Use old raid drive as boot device without data loss

    - by Gabriel
    There were two disks in sw-raid. There were /dev/md1 as swap, /dev/md2 as boot and a /dev/md3 with ext4. The sw-raid was disabled by stopping and removing mdadm and then zeroing the superblock on each /dev/mdX partition with: sudo mdadm --zero-superblock /dev/sda1 sudo mdadm --zero-superblock /dev/sda2 sudo mdadm --zero-superblock /dev/sda3 In the disk that is the first boot device, I don't know if it's relevant, the system type of each partition was set back from fd to 82 or 83 with fdisk, /etc/fstab was updated, changing /dev/mdX to /dev/sdaX, and grub was reinstalled on the boot partition (/dev/sda2) with grub-instal. But the system wont boot. What else should I do to use this disk as the boot device without reinstall or data loss? Current output of fdisk Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 2048 33556480 16777216+ 82 Linux swap / Solaris /dev/sda2 * 33558528 34607104 524288+ 83 Linux /dev/sda3 34609152 3907027120 1936208984+ 83 Linux With it doesn't boot I mean that it stops in the grub console (with the grub> symbol). A ls command says: (hd0) (hd0,msdos3) (hd0,msdos2) (hd0,msdos1) (hd1) (hd1,msdos1) It's weird because hd1 was formatted with ext4...

    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

  • Encrypted partitions with redundancy on ubuntu server

    - by Flamewires
    Hey I have to make a file system with an encrypted partition with on ubuntu server. something like Unencrypted: / - 10 GB /home - 10GB /var - 5GB -------------- Encrypted: /opt - 50GB This I can figure out in the setup, just partition as normal, setup /tmp as a encrypted volume with dm-crypt. However im not sure how to mirror this entire drive, so that if either failed i could still boot. and how will that affect the encrypted partition. Any help would be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Is it reasonable to make a RAID-1 array with a ram disk and a physical disk to maximize read performance and protect data?

    - by Petr Pudlák
    In one of the answers on SO (I forgot which one) I've seen a suggestion to make a RAID-1 array composed of a RAM disk and a physical partition. By adding the physical partition with --write-mostly and enabling --write-behind the system should read everything instantly from the RAM disk but still save all data to the physical partition so that the data are preserved and the RAID array can be assembled again after reboot. Is such a setup reasonable? Will it perform any better in some scenario than having just the physical partition and perhaps tweaking the kernel to favor disk cache (swappiness and vfs_cache_pressure)?

    Read the article

  • RAID 1 after install and two controlers

    - by jfreak53
    I have question regarding RAID 1. Can I setup software RAID 1 after having installed the first drive and setup ubuntu 12? I know that during server install and partitioning I can select RAID and setup then, but what I am not clear on is how in the world to setup RAID 1 after the fact? Can someone provide directions for this? Also, can I RAID 1 two drives one being 500GB and the mirror drive being 1TB? Of course the mirror drive would have a 500GB partition but that's my point. Lastly, can one drive be on IDE and the other on a SATA controller? I know speed will be an issue, that doesn't matter, I just need to know if it will work without corrupting data and if it's the same process? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Does RAID negatively affect non-RAID devices?

    - by Django Reinhardt
    I am running Windows 8 on an SSD, and it's all running swimmingly, but I want to store documents on two HHDs (not SDDs) running under RAID 1. My motherboard has two SATA controllers, both set to AHCI. On the 3GB/s controller, all four ports are used (1 Bluray Optical Drive, 1 Spare HD, and the 2 I wish to turn into a RAID 1 drive). Windows is on the 6GB/s controller. Like so: So my question is: If I turn these four ports (on the 3GB/s controller) into a RAID controller, will that negatively affect the non-RAID hardware plugged into it? I.e. Will the HDD or Bluray drive be slower/incompatible with being plugged into a non-AHCI controller? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu server boot degraded raid

    - by beacon_bonanza
    I've installed Ubuntu 12.04.1 in a new server and set up the 4 hard drives with 3 RAID 1 devices, the configuration is such that the first two drives have md0 (swap space) and md1 (/) with the third and fourth drives having md2 (/var). I've been testing the operation under a drive failure and found that the system boots fine if I remove disk two but if I remove disk one then the system gets to grub and then just restarts. I'm confused as to why grub appears to be loading properly from disk two but then the boot fails.

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu 9.10 won't reboot after replacing a failed drive

    - by user149041
    Hello Serverfault community. I hope someone can shed light on a peculiar problem I am having with an Ubuntu 9.10 server install. I am not a Linux expert but have the responsibility of fixing the box if something goes wrong. DOH! I have Ubuntu 9.10 server installed on on a desktop platform: Compaq Presario SR5027CL. There are two 1TB SATA drives configured in a RAID 1 array; I use the box as an email backup server for a small group of users. Last week one of the drives failed and was replaced with a new drive of the same type. The problem I have been having is getting the box to reboot after a restart or a shutdown halt. The OS and the RAID 1 array are on the same drives that make up the RAID 1 array. The replacement drive (sda) was added to the box and the partitions were created to match the existing good drive (sdb). The array is made up of sda1 and sdb1. I found an interesting point while checking the BIOS settings: there is a "HDD Boot Group Priority" section, and the new drive was selected as the "1. 3rd master"; the server wouldn't boot configured like that, but when I set the old drive to be "1. 4th master", the box will reboot. I'm checking some more things, but I would certainly appreciate any useful information. Thanks in advance.

    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

  • How can I fix my corrupted RAID1 ext4 partition on a Synology DS212 NAS?

    - by Neil
    I have two identical 3 TB disks that were in a RAID1 array, where one disk crashed. I replaced the failed disk, but not after the RAID partitions got messed up. I need to figure out how to restore the RAID array and get at my ext4 partition. Here are the properties of the surviving disk: # fdisk -l /dev/sda fdisk: device has more than 2^32 sectors, can't use all of them Disk /dev/sda: 2199.0 GB, 2199023255040 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 267349 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 1 267350 2147483647+ ee EFI GPT # parted /dev/sda print Model: ATA ST3000DM001-9YN1 (scsi) Disk /dev/sda: 3001GB Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B Partition Table: gpt Disk Flags: Number Start End Size File system Name Flags 1 131kB 2550MB 2550MB ext4 raid 2 2550MB 4698MB 2147MB linux-swap(v1) raid 5 4840MB 3001GB 2996GB raid I replaced the failed drive, and cloned the surviving drive to it so I have something to work with. I cloned the drives with dd if=/dev/sdb of=/dev/sda conv=noerror bs=64M, and now /dev/sda and /dev/sdb are identical. Here is the RAID information: # cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : [linear] [raid0] [raid1] [raid10] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] md1 : active raid1 sdb2[1] 2097088 blocks [2/1] [_U] md0 : active raid1 sdb1[1] 2490176 blocks [2/1] [_U] unused devices: <none> It seems that md2 is missing. Here is what testdisk 6.14-WIP finds: Disk /dev/sda - 3000 GB / 2794 GiB - CHS 364801 255 63 Current partition structure: Partition Start End Size in sectors 1 P Linux Raid 256 4980735 4980480 [md0] 2 P Linux Raid 4980736 9175039 4194304 [md1] Invalid RAID superblock 5 P Linux Raid 9453280 5860519007 5851065728 5 P Linux Raid 9453280 5860519007 5851065728 # After a quick search Disk /dev/sda - 3000 GB / 2794 GiB - CHS 364801 255 63 Partition Start End Size in sectors D MS Data 256 4980607 4980352 [1.41.12-2197] D Linux Raid 256 4980735 4980480 [md0] D Linux Swap 4980736 9174895 4194160 D Linux Raid 4980736 9175039 4194304 [md1] >P MS Data 9481056 5858437983 5848956928 [1.41.12-2228] And listing the files on the last partition in the list shows all of my files intact. What should I do?

    Read the article

  • Linux Raid: Can mdadm --grow a raid1 while mounted?

    - by Chris
    I have 2 500gb drives in a RAID1 setup that I needed to upgrade for more space. I mdadm --fail'ed each drive in turn and I used dd to copy each drive to it's respective larger drive (2tb each), removed the smaller drives and replaced them with the larger drives, and reassembled the array and forced a resync. So now I've got a 500gb RAID1 sitting on 2TB drives, and wish to grow them. The plan is to use mdadm --manage /dev/md0 --grow to grow them, then boot a rescue cd, assemble the array under that environment, and do the resize2fs on them. Can I use mdadm --grow on a mounted and live filesystem? Also, do I need more options to make sure the grow operation stays raid1?

    Read the article

  • RAID degraded on Ubuntu server

    - by reano
    We're having a very weird issue at work. Our Ubuntu server has 6 drives, set up with RAID1 as follows: /dev/md0, consisting of: /dev/sda1 /dev/sdb1 /dev/md1, consisting of: /dev/sda2 /dev/sdb2 /dev/md2, consisting of: /dev/sda3 /dev/sdb3 /dev/md3, consisting of: /dev/sdc1 /dev/sdd1 /dev/md4, consisting of: /dev/sde1 /dev/sdf1 As you can see, md0, md1 and md2 all use the same 2 drives (split into 3 partitions). I also have to note that this is done via ubuntu software raid, not hardware raid. Today, the /md0 RAID1 array shows as degraded - it is missing the /dev/sdb1 drive. But since /dev/sdb1 is only a partition (and /dev/sdb2 and /dev/sdb3 are working fine), it's obviously not the drive that's gone AWOL, it seems the partition itself is missing. How is that even possible? And what could we do to fix it? My output of cat /proc/mdstat: Personalities : [linear] [multipath] [raid0] [raid1] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [raid10] md1 : active raid1 sda2[0] sdb2[1] 24006528 blocks super 1.2 [2/2] [UU] md2 : active raid1 sda3[0] sdb3[1] 1441268544 blocks super 1.2 [2/2] [UU] md0 : active raid1 sda1[0] 1464710976 blocks super 1.2 [2/1] [U_] md3 : active raid1 sdd1[1] sdc1[0] 2930133824 blocks super 1.2 [2/2] [UU] md4 : active raid1 sdf2[1] sde2[0] 2929939264 blocks super 1.2 [2/2] [UU] unused devices: <none> FYI: I tried the following: mdadm /dev/md0 --add /dev/sdb1 But got this error: mdadm: add new device failed for /dev/sdb1 as 2: Invalid argument Output of mdadm --detail /dev/md0 is: /dev/md0: Version : 1.2 Creation Time : Sat Dec 29 17:09:45 2012 Raid Level : raid1 Array Size : 1464710976 (1396.86 GiB 1499.86 GB) Used Dev Size : 1464710976 (1396.86 GiB 1499.86 GB) Raid Devices : 2 Total Devices : 1 Persistence : Superblock is persistent Update Time : Thu Nov 7 15:55:07 2013 State : clean, degraded Active Devices : 1 Working Devices : 1 Failed Devices : 0 Spare Devices : 0 Name : lia:0 (local to host lia) UUID : eb302d19:ff70c7bf:401d63af:ed042d59 Events : 26216 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State 0 8 1 0 active sync /dev/sda1 1 0 0 1 removed

    Read the article

  • Can I take a HDD in Raid1 and plug it straight into a different machine?

    - by jacko
    I would assume that I can just take my HDD out of my NAS (in raid1 mirror) and plug it into another enclosure and have it work off the bat but I'd like to make sure... Any ideas? Edit: My current setup is a Netgear ReadyNAS in (hardware) raid1. I'm hoping to replace this with a home theatre type PC (possibly running Ubuntu), and would like to migrate my data without having to do a bulk transfer over my network between the 2 machines. Can anyone confirm the case for the Netgear ReadyNAS?

    Read the article

  • How to let hard drive sleep in RAID1 configuration?

    - by Al Kepp
    Normally in Windows 7 a hard drive stops spinning when it is not used for a longer while. This can be configured in Windows and I use it on computers which are turned on 24/7 but not used much often. My problem is on a computer with Intel X79 chipset with an integrated RAID controller. There is Windows 7 installed on an SSD drive, and there is RAID1 array with two SATA HDD drives for data. Those SATA drives aren't used much so I'd like to let them sleep (i.e stop spinning). But they ignore settings in Windows. How to let them sleep when using RAID1? It seems to me that those drives are "unstoppable", they are spinning 24/7 even when they aren't used at all. Maybe they would behave normally if I used Windows-based software RAID, but I use hardware RAID controller. Is there a way to let them stop spinning and sleep after for example 3 or 5 hours of inactivity (i.e. the same way as they would behave in Windows without RAID)?

    Read the article

  • Can I take my ReadyNAS drive in Raid1 and plug it straight into new different machine?

    - by jacko
    I would assume that I can just take my HDD out of my NAS (in raid1 mirror) and plug it into another enclosure and have it work off the bat but I'd like to make sure... Any ideas? Edit: My current setup is a Netgear ReadyNAS in (hardware) raid1. I'm hoping to replace this with a home theatre type PC (possibly running Ubuntu), and would like to migrate my data without having to do a bulk transfer over my network between the 2 machines. Can anyone confirm the case for the Netgear ReadyNAS? Edit: Ok after further reading it seems that the ReadyNAS Duo formats my drive as ext3 in 16k blocks. There are instructions for mounting a drive into a linux box here: Mounting Sparc-based ReadyNAS Drives in x86-based Linux There is also talk about a linux image here: ReadyNAS Data Recovery - VMware recovery tool I'm not sure whether this means they ReadyNAS actually implements software raid under the hood, or what? So it appears like it IS do-able, but do any of you linux guru's know whether this is viable and whether the fact that they are in raid 1 affect matters?

    Read the article

  • Does chunk size affect the read performance of a Linux md software RAID1 array?

    - by OldWolf
    This came up in relation to this question on determining chunk size of an existing RAID array. The general consensus seems to be that chunk size does not apply to RAID1 as it is not striped. On the other hand, the Linux RAID Wiki claims that it will have an affect on read performance. However, I cannot find any benchmarks testing/proving that. Can anyone point to conclusive documentation that it either does or does not affect read performance?

    Read the article

  • Software RAID 1 broken, how do I fix this?

    - by Edward
    I'm running CentOS 6 x86_64. There is a software RAID 1 being used on the two internal 80GB drives. I got the following e-mail sent to me: A DegradedArray event had been detected on md device /dev/md1. Faithfully yours, etc. P.S. The /proc/mdstat file currently contains the following: Personalities : [raid1] md0 : active raid1 sda1[0] 511988 blocks super 1.0 [2/1] [U_] md1 : active raid1 sda2[0] 8190968 blocks super 1.1 [2/1] [U_] bitmap: 1/1 pages [4KB], 65536KB chunk md4 : active raid1 sdc1[0] sdb1[1] 1953512400 blocks super 1.2 [2/2] [UU] md3 : active raid1 sdd5[1] sda5[0] 61224892 blocks super 1.1 [2/2] [UU] bitmap: 1/1 pages [4KB], 65536KB chunk md2 : active raid1 sdd3[1] sda3[0] 8190968 blocks super 1.1 [2/2] [UU] unused devices: <none> The system appears to have booted fine and is working. The two drives' content did not change at all. I only removed and reinstalled them while I was booted on the CentOS Live DVD. How do I get the array working again?

    Read the article

  • Commercial NAS RAID1 disks moved to Software Raid system?

    - by Rolnik
    I've got a couple of commercial NAS boxes and I'm wondering if they (ReadyNas duo, DLink DNS-323) or any other NAS is suitable for having their RAIDed disks moved to a software-based NAS. To be specific, I'm a big fan of the (largely) Debian-based Ubuntu. Can the aforementioned NAS drives be migrated to Ubuntu (e.g. using the mdadm Linux command)? Secondly, is there any commercial NAS that can be migrated over? Incidentally, here is a link to somebody who succeeded in a migration: http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/moving-raid1-drives-into-computer-with-same-md-numbers-862312/ My specific scenario I'd like to prepare for, is the eventual (sudden) death of one of the NAS motherboards.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >