Search Results

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

Page 6/75 | < Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >

  • Will Ubuntu break my RAID 0 array?

    - by Chad
    I am upgrading an older machine today with new Motherboard, RAM, and CPU. Then I am going to do a fresh install of Ubuntu 64bit. Currently the old machine has an 80gb system drive, and a 4TB RAID 0 array. The old Motherboard has no SATA ports, so I used a SATA card. Ubuntu set up the old RAID array, will it still recognize the array on a newer machine? Are there any steps I should take to ensure the array isn't damaged? It's non-crucial data, but I would rather not start over if it can be avoided. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Well supported Hardware Raid Controller

    - by ftiaronsem
    Hello alltogether I am currently planning to buy a hardware-raid controller. This became necessary since I am running Linux and Windows in parallel and now need the redundancy for both OS (Im am going to use RAID1 / Mirroring). Therefore I am searching for a hardware raid controller which is well supported by linux / ubuntu (reporting smart values, stats for the harddrives, etc...). This controller should have four sata ports and if possible it should fit in a PCIE-1x Slot. I would greatly appreciate, if you could suggest some devices. Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu 13.10 software raid

    - by Piotr Belniak
    I had already Ubuntu OS installed on my desktop PC, where the software RAID 5 is configured ( 3 partitions /, swap and home ). This system was upgraded from the 11.04 till 13.04, it was quite messy, so I decided to install fresh system on existing partitions. 1st of all i found that there is no alternate version of the installer ( which i used to create previous installation ), so i stared with the regular image. I installed mdadm tools, assemble the partitions - fdisk are showing them properly - so i'm starting the installation - and everything i going fine until the GRUB instalation - this part fails - regardless of which partition i use as a target. From the other hand, neither OpenSUse and Ubuntu 12.04 alternate does not have any problems with installing the GRUB - on this configuration, unfortunatelly Ubuntu 12.04 - 12.10 upgrade is failing bacause of some Xorg issues ;(. Maybe someone has an experience with installation of ubuntu 13.10 GRUB on the RAID 5 partitions - and could give me a hint, how to solve my problem. Thanks in advance, Piotr

    Read the article

  • How does btrfs RAID work in degraded mode?

    - by turbo
    My idea was that (using loopback devices) it works like this Create the raid array sudo mkfs.btrfs -m raid1 -d raid1 /dev/loop1 /dev/loop2 You mount them sudo mount /dev/loop1 /mnt and mark them touch goodcondition You unmount and simulate disk failure (remove disk or delete loopback device loop2 in my case) You mount degraded -o degraded and mark again touch degraded You add the bad disk again sudo btrfs dev add /dev/loop2 You rebalance sudo btrfs fi ba /mnt And Raid 1 should work again. But that's not the case. sudo btrfs fi show: Total devices 3 FS bytes used 28.00KB devid 3 size 4.00GB used 264.00MB path /dev/loop1 devid 2 size 4.00GB used 272.00MB path /dev/loop2 *** Some devices missing The file degraded lives on loop1 but not on loop2 when loop2 is mounted in degraded mode. Why is that?

    Read the article

  • Failed install 12.04 on Intel Hardware Raid with Large Partition (> 2TB)

    - by Michael Wiles
    I have Intel Hardware Raid on the motherboard. I have 10 2 TB HDD that I've configured as RAID 1+0 to be one big 8 TB HDD. Now I'm trying to install ubuntu 12.04 on it. After installing with default desktop installation disk I get a blank screen with a cursor flashing. If I try the alternate guided partitioning option I get error: out of disk. and the grub prompt. If I boot with the rescue disk or such like I can drop into a shell and view the disk. Everything also installs without an issue. Don't know what to do...

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu installation accuses false RAID

    - by rOim
    I'm trying to install a Ubuntu 12.04/Win7 dual boot on my machine (with 2 750GB HDs). Problem is, during the partitioning, the installation says I'm using RAID, and shows only one HD, with 1.5TB. I have, however, disabled raid on the setup, and installed Windows 7 only on HD 1, and want to keep Ubuntu to HD 2. I'm afraid to "resize" the partitions using the installer since that could mess my win7 installation. I did try to use the alternate installer, but had the same results.

    Read the article

  • Can I create a hybrid software-RAID array with disks of different sizes?

    - by stueng
    Products such as Synology offer something called Synology Hybrid RAID http://www.synology.com/us/products/features/RAID.php This RAID type allows you to make best use of your disks available by using all the disk space available as long as at least two disks share the same increased size where a typical RAID setup would simply "throw away" the extra space I would like to build a NAS with 4 disks available. I will begin by populating it with 3 X 3TB to give me 6TB usable. By the time I have filled this 6TB I imagine that 4TB disks will have come down in price, so at this stage I would add a 4th 4TB disk to give me an additional 3TB of space. When I next run out of space I will change one of the original 3TB disks with a 4TB disk giving me an additional 1TB of space. This is not possible with a typical RAID configuration, only with these "hybrid RAID" types I am wondering if I can acheive a similar "hybrid RAID" with Ubuntu? or another linux distro?

    Read the article

  • Not enough components to start the RAID array?

    - by urig
    I'm trying to retrieve data from a "Western Digital MyBook World Edition (white light)" NAS device. This is basically an embedded Linux box with a 1TB HDD in it formatted in ext3. It stopped booting one day for no apparent reason. I have extracted the HDD from the NAS device and installed it in a desktop machine running Ubuntu 10.10 in the hope of accessing the files on the drive. Unfortunately, Ubuntu has not been able to mount the drive automatically. Having started up Disk Utility I see the drive as a multi disk device called "Array (Array)" showing Metadata Version 0.90.0. The device state is: "Not Running, not enough components to start". When I click the "Start RAID Array" button I get an error saying: "Not enough components to start the RAID array". Can you please tell me which components are missing and how to install them to get access to the drive's filesystem?

    Read the article

  • Well supported Hardware Raid Controller

    - by ftiaronsem
    I am currently planning to buy a hardware-raid controller. This became necessary since I am running Linux and Windows in parallel and now need the redundancy for both OS (Im am going to use RAID1 / Mirroring). Therefore I am searching for a hardware raid controller which is well supported by linux / ubuntu (reporting smart values, stats for the harddrives, etc...). This controller should have four sata ports and if possible it should fit in a PCIE-1x Slot. I would greatly appreciate, if you could suggest some devices. Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu 14.04 install on hardware with RAID

    - by nolak
    I've just built a new machine using an ASUS Mobo with 8GB of RAM and set up RAID 10 with 4 new HDD. I want to install Ubuntu 14.04 on it and so far have tried to do so 3 times with no luck. The installation seems to work fine but after it has finished it restarts and all I get is a black screen. Is there something I am missing? I've completed the install on other machines before without issue I just never tried it on a machine with RAID set up.

    Read the article

  • Red Hat 5.3 on HP Proliant DL380 G5 and failed drive on RAID controller

    - by thinkdreams
    I have a development ERP server here in my office that I assist with support on, and originally the DBA requested a single drive setup for some of the drives on the server. Thus the hardware RAID controller (an HP embedded controller) looks like: c0d0 (2 drive) RAID-1 c0d1 (2 drive) RAID-1 c0d2 (1 drive) No RAID <-- Failed c0d3 (1 drive) No RAID c0d4 (1 drive) No RAID c0d5 (1 drive) No RAID c0d2 has failed. I replaced the drive immediately with a spare using the hot-swap, but the c0d2 continues to mark itself as failed, even when I umount the partition. I'm loathe to reboot the server since I'm concerned about the server coming back up in rescue mode but I'm afraid that's the only way to get the system to re-read the drive. I assumed there was some sort of auto-detection routine for this, but I haven't been able to figure out the proper procedure. I have installed the HP ACU CLI utilties, so I can see the hardware RAID setup. I'd really like to find out what the proper procedure should have been, where I went wrong, and how to correct it now. Obviously this goes without saying I should NOT have listened to the DBA and set the drives up as RAID-1 throughout as was my first instinct. He wasn't worried about data loss, but it sure would have been easier to replace the failed drive. :)

    Read the article

  • What effect does RAID stripe size have on read-ahead settings?

    - by stbrody
    I'm trying to figure out the correct read-ahead values to set on a RAID10 array, and I'm wondering if the RAID stripe size should factor into my considerations. I've heard conflicting information about this in the past. I once heard that you should always set your read-ahead value to a multiple of the RAID stripe size, and never below the stripe size, because that is the minimum amount of data the RAID controller will ever try to read at once. Someone else told me, however, that setting read-ahead below the stripe size is fine, and can, in fact, increase the amount of parallel reads you can do across devices in the array, increasing performance and decreasing load on the array. So which is it? Do read-ahead settings that aren't multiples of the stripe size make sense or not?

    Read the article

  • Recover Intel Matrix Raid Configuration

    - by Catalin DICU
    Hello, I had 2 HDDs in Intel Matrix Raid configuration on a motherboard with intel ICH9R. I had some RAID 0 partitions and one RAID 1 partition. Somehow when replacing my videocard I partially unpulugged the power connector from one of the HDD. I booted and only one disk was showing. So I turned off the PC and correctly plugged the power connector and how both HDDs are showing as "Non-Raid Disk" Is there a way to restore the raid configuration from before ? In fact I don't really remember how my partitions where configured, I had 2x100Gb + 1x296Gb in RAID 0 and one 50Gb in RAID 1 (using 2x320Gb HDDs) but I'm not sure how many volumes and how the partitions where allocated on the volumes. Is there a tool to find that ? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Linux Software RAID: How to fsck on hard drive?

    - by Rick-Rainer Ludwig
    We have a Linux server running with Software RAID1. We see some issues in /var/log/messages like: unreadable sector. I want to perform a complete fsck on the drive to get some more information, but a fsck /dev/md0 brings a clean due to the Software RAID layer in between. How can I check the real hard drive? Do I need to disassemble the whole RAID? How do I deal with the inconsistency in the partition due to the additional Software RAID header? Does anyone have a good idea for this?

    Read the article

  • Looking for an actual experience of RAID 5 2 drive failure?

    - by Brian
    I'm wondering if anyone has any personal experience of RAID 5 2 drive failure with large drives? As I understand it, the theory is that with large 1-2TB drives, if one drive fails in the raid set, it needs to rebuild everything so is thus hitting all the other drives very hard, and the chance of another failure goes up, especially if the drives were from the same manufacturing batch. And if you lose another drive, you lose all the data. This is usually explained after the statement "RAID is not backup" which I agree with. The theory of this makes sense, and I understand it, but does it really happen?

    Read the article

  • Raid 5 with 4 disks on Debian automatically creates a spare drive

    - by Razer
    I'm trying to to create a RAID 5 with 4x 2TB disks on Debian 6. I followed the instructions from: http://zackreed.me/articles/38-software-raid-5-in-debian-with-mdadm I created the raid with following command: sudo mdadm --create --verbose /dev/md0 --auto=yes --level=5 --raid-devices=4 /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdc1 /dev/sdd1 /dev/sde1 After creating the RAID mdadm --detail /dev/md0 shows me: /dev/md0: Version : 1.2 Creation Time : Mon Jun 11 18:14:26 2012 Raid Level : raid5 Array Size : 5860535808 (5589.04 GiB 6001.19 GB) Used Dev Size : 1953511936 (1863.01 GiB 2000.40 GB) Raid Devices : 4 Total Devices : 4 Persistence : Superblock is persistent Update Time : Mon Jun 11 18:14:26 2012 State : clean, degraded Active Devices : 3 Working Devices : 4 Failed Devices : 0 Spare Devices : 1 Layout : left-symmetric Chunk Size : 512K Name : rsserver:0 (local to host rsserver) UUID : a68c3c99:1ef865e9:5a8a7bdc:64710ed8 Events : 0 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State 0 8 17 0 active sync /dev/sdb1 1 8 33 1 active sync /dev/sdc1 2 8 49 2 active sync /dev/sdd1 3 0 0 3 removed 4 8 65 - spare /dev/sde1 Why is there a spare drive? I didn't create one. I don't want to use a spare drive.

    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

  • Linux/OS X dualboot on a Macbook Pro with RAID

    - by GaretJax
    I'd like to install Gentoo Linux on my Macbook Pro by keeping my current OS X installation. I currently have OS X installed on a RAID 0 on two 160GB Intel SSDs and I'd like to create a new partition for Gentoo alongside OS X without losing the RAID setup but, from what I read on the net, Apple's software RAID is poorly (read "not at all") supported: BootCamp refuses to create a windows partition on a RAID volume rEFIt is not able to boot an OS from a software RAID even Apple's recovery partition for Lion can't be created on a RAID volume Is there a way to dual boot my Macbook while keeping the RAID solution?

    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

  • Expanding RAID-5

    - by Garry
    I'm new to RAID and trying to get my head around things. I have owned a Drobo in the past (which I liked) but it failed. Here's a hypothetical scenario: Assume I set up a RAID-5 array consisting of four 1TB hot-swappable 2.5" SATA drives. I name this volume 'My Data'. By my calculations, that would give me 2.7TB of usable space and the ability to recover if a single drive fails. I have a few questions: What happens if I pull out a single 1TB drive and replace it with a 2TB drive? Would the array automatically rebuild itself with no issues? Would the maximum capacity remain 2.7TB? If number (1) above is true and the array rebuilds itself with three 1TB drives one 2TB drive what would happen if I then pulled another 1TB drive out and stuck in a 2TB drive (you can see where I'm going here can't you). Would I eventually be able to gain more storage by gradually adding bigger drives? From a practical point of view, how much input is required from me as the end user whilst these drives are being pulled out and put in? On the Drobo, the storage space just automagically handles itself. Would I have to be actively involved in telling Ubuntu what was going on or would any of it be automated? Thanks in advance,

    Read the article

  • howto plan RAID for ESX

    - by maruti
    eight 300GB SAS drives are available. Can ESX be put on one disk as RAID-0 and others as RAID-5 ? so that in the event of disk failure data (VMs) are safe. if os disk RAID-0 fails could that be installed on replacement disk and still be able to keep VMs running? if not RAID-1 for OS is only option for OS disk? please suggest any other RAID options.

    Read the article

  • Moving Windows XP from ICH10R RAID 5 to single disk using Linux [migrated]

    - by tudor
    A friend's machine running Windows XP refused to boot recently which is running 3 SATA disks on RAID 5 (which was previously upgraded from RAID 1 not by me). I have determined there to be a disk failure. The disks have been replaced many times in the past few years. I wish to backup the RAID5 partition before I try anything to fix it. The RAID chipset used is ICH10R/DO. So, I plugged in an extra IDE drive and an Ubuntu USB key and looked at the RAID. The partitioning is a mess, but I did find at least one degraded but working RAID array with two partitions, one 79GB and the other 86GB. Then I: 1) Partitioned my IDE disk using fdisk to have a partition of 80GB and bootable, and marked as NTFS. 2) dd the contents of the array to the partition 3) disconnected everything else 4) inserted a Windows XP CD and ran fixboot, fixmbr, and bootcfg. They all run ok and claim that they worked. (e.g. bootcfg detects the Windows partition, fixboot returns saying that it was written correctly.) However, I'm still getting an error like "DISK FAILURE, BOOT DISK NOT FOUND". I have tried running the GRUB rescue disk, which also runs ok, but won't boot into Windows. It just stops with a flashing cursor after chainloader +1, boot. One clue may be that the partitions appear to be wack. One disk has a 79GB RAID partition on a 500GB drive with a offset, the second disk has a 320GB RAID partition across the whole drive. Additionally, the BIOS lists the RAID size as being 149GB. I don't see how this works. How are they even assembling the array when the partitions are so different? I have also tried running the Windows XP automated repair tool, but that didn't work either. I'm presuming this is something simple. Perhaps Windows is attempting to boot into RAID and, upon not finding it, simply crashing? Perhaps the 79GB partitions offset means that it's looking into the disk by that much? Please help!! To clarify: I want to make the single IDE disk bootable with a copy of the array so that I can prove/disprove that it's just that Windows has become corrupted, and use windows tools to correct it before attempting the same thing on the RAID array. That way I have a working backup and can show the process I used to fix it.

    Read the article

  • How many disks is too many in this RAID 5 configuration??

    - by Tom
    HP 2012i SAN, 7 disks in RAID 5 with 1 hot spare, took several days to expand the volume from 5 to 7 300GB SAS drives. Looking for suggestions about when and how I would determine that having 2 volumes in the SAN, each one with RAID 5, would be better?? I can add 3 more drives to the controller someday, the SAN is used for ESX/vSphere VMs. Thank you...

    Read the article

  • How to get an inactive RAID device working again?

    - by Jonik
    After booting, my RAID1 device (/dev/md_d0 *) sometimes goes in some funny state and I cannot mount it. * Originally I created /dev/md0 but it has somehow changed itself into /dev/md_d0. # mount /opt mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/md_d0, missing codepage or helper program, or other error (could this be the IDE device where you in fact use ide-scsi so that sr0 or sda or so is needed?) In some cases useful info is found in syslog - try dmesg | tail or so The RAID device appears to be inactive somehow: # cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : [linear] [multipath] [raid0] [raid1] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [raid10] md_d0 : inactive sda4[0](S) 241095104 blocks # mdadm --detail /dev/md_d0 mdadm: md device /dev/md_d0 does not appear to be active. Question is, how to make the device active again (using mdmadm, I presume)? (Other times it's alright (active) after boot, and I can mount it manually without problems. But it still won't mount automatically even though I have it in /etc/fstab: /dev/md_d0 /opt ext4 defaults 0 0 So a bonus question: what should I do to make the RAID device automatically mount at /opt at boot time?) This is an Ubuntu 9.10 workstation. Background info about my RAID setup in this question. Edit: My /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf looks like this. I've never touched this file, at least by hand. # by default, scan all partitions (/proc/partitions) for MD superblocks. # alternatively, specify devices to scan, using wildcards if desired. DEVICE partitions # 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 <my mail address> # definitions of existing MD arrays # This file was auto-generated on Wed, 27 Jan 2010 17:14:36 +0200 In /proc/partitions the last entry is md_d0 at least now, after reboot, when the device happens to be active again. (I'm not sure if it would be the same when it's inactive.) Resolution: as Jimmy Hedman suggested, I took the output of mdadm --examine --scan: ARRAY /dev/md0 level=raid1 num-devices=2 UUID=de8fbd92[...] and added it in /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf, which seems to have fixed the main problem. After changing /etc/fstab to use /dev/md0 again (instead of /dev/md_d0), the RAID device also gets automatically mounted!

    Read the article

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