Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
Software RAID 0 HOW-TO
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Documentation, Tips & Tricks
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
taskara
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 10 Apr 2002
Posts: 3763
Location: Australia

PostPosted: Sun Dec 28, 2003 2:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

janlaur wrote:
btw, anybody knows why the driver for promise mbfasttrack lite (pdcraid.o) dosn't work after 2.4.20, and if it is going to be included in 2.6 at any point ?


well ataraid was just a hack someone wrote for 2.4 kernels

2.6 does not have support for ANY ataraid controllers (unless they are true hardware raid)

but it does indeed support the raid cards, but only as standard ide.

perhaps in the future if someone writes proper ataraid support, or if manufacturers write proper linux drivers things may change..

but I assume from this thread, that you are using linux software raid, which is indeed supported in 2.6, and so will your ide controllers.
_________________
Kororaa install method - have Gentoo up and running quickly and easily, fully automated with an installer!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mr_D
n00b
n00b


Joined: 29 Dec 2003
Posts: 6
Location: Marietta, GA

PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2004 5:30 am    Post subject: RAID 0 and 1, root and /home partitions Reply with quote

I'm switching over to Gentoo as my main workstation. I have time to tinker for the next month, afterwards I'll be using this machine mostly for getting things done (imagine that!) I'm doing this (A) because it's cool (B) I want a fast workstation.

I'm preparing to set up software RAID 0 using 2 IBM 60gb Deskstar drives. I also want to partition the drive so that the /home directory has it's own partition. I need to clarify a few things

1. Where is RAID 0 more useful? for reading or writing? For /home or everything else?

2. If I set up two 30gb RAID 0 partitions for /, placed a normal /home in it's own partition, would that be a good compromise between speed and keeping your data relatively safe?

3. What about having two software raids, using RAID 0 for / and the more reliable RAID 1 in for the /home. Is this a smart and valid set up?

hda:
/boot (64 mb)
/swap (256mb)
/root raid0 (28 gb)
/home raid1 (30 gb)

hd1
/swap (256mb)
/root raid0 (28 gb)
/home raid1 (30 gb)

Any help is appreciated. Also, I have an older 4gb drive sitting here, so I could make that /boot and /swap if it makes any difference.

Lastly -- once I get this Gentoo system setup, I don't plan on tinkering with it a lot. Let me know if this RAID is just little over the top for a Power User who wants a fast, dependable and easily updateable workstation.

Thx,
_________________
Did you know that 35% of American voters identify themselves as "independents"? Where's our representation? http://www.cuip.org
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
taskara
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 10 Apr 2002
Posts: 3763
Location: Australia

PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2004 6:34 am    Post subject: Re: RAID 0 and 1, root and /home partitions Reply with quote

Mr_D wrote:
I'm switching over to Gentoo as my main workstation. I have time to tinker for the next month, afterwards I'll be using this machine mostly for getting things done (imagine that!) I'm doing this (A) because it's cool (B) I want a fast workstation.

I'm preparing to set up software RAID 0 using 2 IBM 60gb Deskstar drives. I also want to partition the drive so that the /home directory has it's own partition. I need to clarify a few things

1. Where is RAID 0 more useful? for reading or writing? For /home or everything else?


everything, including home

Mr_D wrote:
2. If I set up two 30gb RAID 0 partitions for /, placed a normal /home in it's own partition, would that be a good compromise between speed and keeping your data relatively safe?


yes, but linux raid 0 is not un-safe. it has been around for years - it's only if one of your hdd's dies that you loose (possibly half) your data - but if you put all of /home on one partition and that drive dies, you lose all of it anyway. I would be more inclined to use /home on raid 0 and backup the data to an external drive (perhaps your 4gb)

Mr_D wrote:
3. What about having two software raids, using RAID 0 for / and the more reliable RAID 1 in for the /home. Is this a smart and valid set up?

hda:
/boot (64 mb)
/swap (256mb)
/root raid0 (28 gb)
/home raid1 (30 gb)

hd1
/swap (256mb)
/root raid0 (28 gb)
/home raid1 (30 gb)


this is smarter, and perfectly appropriate - however you won't get any speed increase, and remember raid 1 is only useful if one of your hard drives totally dies (it does not protect against accidental file deletion or corruption etc). So if your harddrives are good quality you can run the risk of them not dying, and use raid0.

Mr_D wrote:
Any help is appreciated. Also, I have an older 4gb drive sitting here, so I could make that /boot and /swap if it makes any difference.


leave the old drive out all together - it will slow your system

Mr_D wrote:
Lastly -- once I get this Gentoo system setup, I don't plan on tinkering with it a lot. Let me know if this RAID is just little over the top for a Power User who wants a fast, dependable and easily updateable workstation.

Thx,


looks good to me :)

edit: btw, you can raid 0 your swap partitions if you like, but it's not neccessary - just put them on the same priority in your /etc/fstab and they will work the same as raid0 :)

oh and also, I'd make sure everything is at exactly the partitions, and I'd also make /boot on your second hard drive, and use raid1.

so should be something like this:

Code:
hda:
/boot raid1  (64 mb)
/swap pri=1 (256mb)
/root raid0  (28 gb)
/home raid0 (30 gb)

hdc:
/boot raid1 (64 mb)
/swap pri=1 (256mb)
/root raid0  (28 gb)
/home raid0 (30 gb)


I assume you are not using your two hard drives on the SAME ide channel? (ie master and slave) if you are it kinda defeats the purpose cause your drives will be dog slow in this config.
_________________
Kororaa install method - have Gentoo up and running quickly and easily, fully automated with an installer!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mr_D
n00b
n00b


Joined: 29 Dec 2003
Posts: 6
Location: Marietta, GA

PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2004 3:05 pm    Post subject: Re: RAID 0 and 1, root and /home partitions Reply with quote

taskara wrote:

yes, but linux raid 0 is not un-safe. it has been around for years - it's only if one of your hdd's dies that you loose (possibly half) your data - but if you put all of /home on one partition and that drive dies, you lose all of it anyway. I would be more inclined to use /home on raid 0 and backup the data to an external drive (perhaps your 4gb)


Ok -- little confused on this point. You had said in the post to leave the 4gb out altogether. What do you mean here by "external drive"? Are you suggesting backing up to a different box altogether? or is the 4gb is in the same box, just nothing to do with the RAID array? If so, how would it be partitioned?

I've only had one disk meltdown on one of my personal systems ever, and I guess I need to think more about backup plan -- maybe burning a CD-rw every so often.

Mr_D wrote:
3. What about having two software raids, using RAID 0 for / and the more reliable RAID 1 in for the /home. Is this a smart and valid set up?


taskara wrote:

this is smarter, and perfectly appropriate - however you won't get any speed increase, and remember raid 1 is only useful if one of your hard drives totally dies (it does not protect against accidental file deletion or corruption etc). So if your harddrives are good quality you can run the risk of them not dying, and use raid0.


I don't understand why there's not speed increase for the RAID 0 partition. ? Wouldn't everything that operates out of root have a speed increase?

I've read that the IBM DeskStars are pretty reliable drives. Since there's data loss if either drive fails, I think it's doubling of risk that's bothering me a bit.

taskara wrote:

edit: btw, you can raid 0 your swap partitions if you like, but it's not neccessary - just put them on the same priority in your /etc/fstab and they will work the same as raid0 :)

oh and also, I'd make sure everything is at exactly the partitions, and I'd also make /boot on your second hard drive, and use raid1.

so should be something like this:

Code:
hda:
/boot raid1  (64 mb)
/swap pri=1 (256mb)
/root raid0  (28 gb)
/home raid0 (30 gb)

hdc:
/boot raid1 (64 mb)
/swap pri=1 (256mb)
/root raid0  (28 gb)
/home raid0 (30 gb)


I assume you are not using your two hard drives on the SAME ide channel? (ie master and slave) if you are it kinda defeats the purpose cause your drives will be dog slow in this config.


Thanks for the setup info -- I wouldn't have know to make the drives physically the exact same. I will set up both drives as a master. That will require installing an IDE board to run the CD Rom. Any suggestions on that are also welcome. Is there anything to gain by using hardware RAID (the boards in the $100 to $150 range)?

Also -- do you know of any howto or gentoo posts on creating /home in seperate partition?
_________________
Did you know that 35% of American voters identify themselves as "independents"? Where's our representation? http://www.cuip.org
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Crg
Guru
Guru


Joined: 29 May 2002
Posts: 345
Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2004 4:45 pm    Post subject: Re: RAID 0 and 1, root and /home partitions Reply with quote

taskara wrote:

1. Where is RAID 0 more useful? for reading or writing? For /home or everything else?


Raid0 is faster for reading and writing but it can have a higher average seek time (it has to move 2 heads) and for small amounts of data.
Mirroring has a lower average seek time than raid0, but it is less diskpace efficient and slower at writing.

taskara wrote:

yes, but linux raid 0 is not un-safe. it has been around for years - it's only if one of your hdd's dies that you loose (possibly half) your data - but if you put all of /home on one partition and that drive dies, you lose all of it anyway


If you think about it raid0 is more unsafe than just 1 disk as you have 2 disks that could fail, and if one fails you lose all the data on both (because the data is striped across), so not only is it more likely to fail - you have more data to lose. If you used the 2 disk without raid0 if one failed you'd still have the other one's data.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Crg
Guru
Guru


Joined: 29 May 2002
Posts: 345
Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2004 4:49 pm    Post subject: Re: RAID 0 and 1, root and /home partitions Reply with quote

Mr_D wrote:

3. What about having two software raids, using RAID 0 for / and the more reliable RAID 1 in for the /home. Is this a smart and valid set up?


That is a good setup. Having data you don't want to lose on a mirrored partition for redundancy, but having fast read access on your binaries which you can easily replace. You might want to have a small raid1 partition for /etc as well as well.

Also I don't think I seen the "stride" option mentioned on these forums. If you making a ext2/3 raid0 partition you should pass the
Code:
-R stride=xx
option to mkfs, where xx is how many blocks fits in the stripe size.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mr_D
n00b
n00b


Joined: 29 Dec 2003
Posts: 6
Location: Marietta, GA

PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2004 5:43 pm    Post subject: Re: RAID 0 and 1, root and /home partitions Reply with quote

Crg wrote:
You might want to have a small raid1 partition for /etc as well as well.

Also I don't think I seen the "stride" option mentioned on these forums. If you making a ext2/3 raid0 partition you should pass the
Code:
-R stride=xx
option to mkfs, where xx is how many blocks fits in the stripe size.


Can you say more about a small RAID1 partition for /etc. What's your rationale there?

Also, I was planning on using ReiserFS (b/c I've always used it before). Is Reiser a good choice for RAID? Or would EXT 2 or 3 a better choice?

thx,
_________________
Did you know that 35% of American voters identify themselves as "independents"? Where's our representation? http://www.cuip.org
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Crg
Guru
Guru


Joined: 29 May 2002
Posts: 345
Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2004 6:24 pm    Post subject: Re: RAID 0 and 1, root and /home partitions Reply with quote

Mr_D wrote:

Can you say more about a small RAID1 partition for /etc. What's your rationale there?


If one of your disks died, you'd still have all the stuff in home and the stuff in /etc so you don't have to reconfigure everything. Just need to replace the binaries.
It depends on how much stuff you configure in there, for me there's webserver, proxy, firewall, QoS, scripts etc that I wouldn't want to have to redo if a disk died :)

Mr_D wrote:

Also, I was planning on using ReiserFS (b/c I've always used it before). Is Reiser a good choice for RAID? Or would EXT 2 or 3 a better choice?


Haven't benchmarked it so couldn't say :) If you were planning on using reiserfs it's a good choice.


Last edited by Crg on Sat Jan 10, 2004 12:03 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
taskara
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 10 Apr 2002
Posts: 3763
Location: Australia

PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2004 9:23 pm    Post subject: Re: RAID 0 and 1, root and /home partitions Reply with quote

Mr_D wrote:
taskara wrote:

yes, but linux raid 0 is not un-safe. it has been around for years - it's only if one of your hdd's dies that you loose (possibly half) your data - but if you put all of /home on one partition and that drive dies, you lose all of it anyway. I would be more inclined to use /home on raid 0 and backup the data to an external drive (perhaps your 4gb)


Ok -- little confused on this point. You had said in the post to leave the 4gb out altogether. What do you mean here by "external drive"? Are you suggesting backing up to a different box altogether? or is the 4gb is in the same box, just nothing to do with the RAID array? If so, how would it be partitioned?
sorry.. I meant perhaps use the 4gb as an external, buying and putting it in an external usb case, and plugging it into your usb port, and then you can use it to backup your /home partition. yes, it is nothing to do with the raid array, I was just suggesting a backup solution so you could use /home in raid0. hope that is clear now :?

Mr_D wrote:
I've only had one disk meltdown on one of my personal systems ever, and I guess I need to think more about backup plan -- maybe burning a CD-rw every so often.
yep that's fine, whatever backup solution works for you - just that cds don't hold much when you are talking about backing up a whole /home partition! ;)

Mr_D wrote:
3. What about having two software raids, using RAID 0 for / and the more reliable RAID 1 in for the /home. Is this a smart and valid set up?

taskara wrote:

this is smarter, and perfectly appropriate - however you won't get any speed increase, and remember raid 1 is only useful if one of your hard drives totally dies (it does not protect against accidental file deletion or corruption etc). So if your harddrives are good quality you can run the risk of them not dying, and use raid0.


I don't understand why there's not speed increase for the RAID 0 partition. ? Wouldn't everything that operates out of root have a speed increase?
yes you are right, I didn't make myself clear - I was referring to using raid1 - if you use raid1 on your /home you will not get any speed increase, but any raid0 partition will give you speed increase.

Mr_D wrote:
I've read that the IBM DeskStars are pretty reliable drives. Since there's data loss if either drive fails, I think it's doubling of risk that's bothering me a bit.
yeah, but if you have a backup then you will be fine :) also what's the mean time between failure on the drives? I think you'll find it's about 10 years. that's not to say one won't die tomorrow.

Mr_D wrote:
taskara wrote:

edit: btw, you can raid 0 your swap partitions if you like, but it's not neccessary - just put them on the same priority in your /etc/fstab and they will work the same as raid0 :)

oh and also, I'd make sure everything is at exactly the partitions, and I'd also make /boot on your second hard drive, and use raid1.

so should be something like this:

Code:
hda:
/boot raid1  (64 mb)
/swap pri=1 (256mb)
/root raid0  (28 gb)
/home raid0 (30 gb)

hdc:
/boot raid1 (64 mb)
/swap pri=1 (256mb)
/root raid0  (28 gb)
/home raid0 (30 gb)


I assume you are not using your two hard drives on the SAME ide channel? (ie master and slave) if you are it kinda defeats the purpose cause your drives will be dog slow in this config.


Thanks for the setup info -- I wouldn't have know to make the drives physically the exact same. I will set up both drives as a master. That will require installing an IDE board to run the CD Rom. Any suggestions on that are also welcome. Is there anything to gain by using hardware RAID (the boards in the $100 to $150 range)?

Also -- do you know of any howto or gentoo posts on creating /home in seperate partition?


no - do not buy a "raid card" you just want an ide card - like a promise ultra100 or something.

and the installation guide shows you how to make a seperate partition for /home. you just create the extra partition, and in your /etc/fstab file you tell linux that the extra partition is /home.

btw this is also what you need: software riad howto

good luck, and let me know if u need to know anything else :)
_________________
Kororaa install method - have Gentoo up and running quickly and easily, fully automated with an installer!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
taskara
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 10 Apr 2002
Posts: 3763
Location: Australia

PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2004 9:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

oh I didn't see the other posts.

yeah I like reiserfs

use ext2 or ext3 for /boot

and as for /etc - it's the same as /home. you can run it as raid1 if you want, but in my opinion you'd be better off running the whole system in raid0 and just backing up - you won't have many config files to backup, so /etc on raid1 is a bit of overkill.

still at the end of the day, it's up to you :)

you can always backup an entire partition, and change the raid level, then copy the data back, so it's not the end of the world if you wanna change later you can :)
_________________
Kororaa install method - have Gentoo up and running quickly and easily, fully automated with an installer!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Crg
Guru
Guru


Joined: 29 May 2002
Posts: 345
Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2004 11:12 pm    Post subject: Re: RAID 0 and 1, root and /home partitions Reply with quote

taskara wrote:

yes you are right, I didn't make myself clear - I was referring to using raid1 - if you use raid1 on your /home you will not get any speed increase, but any raid0 partition will give you speed increase.


Just to clear things up abit with raid1.

If you're talking serial disk access - say like testing it with hdparm - then raid1 will be the speed of a single disk (it will be reading off a single disk :) ).

But if you have parallel reads going on, (which is quite often the case when you are actually using your system), the reads will be balanced across the drives - ie you'll be fetching multiple reads at once, plus raid1 has lower average seek times so more time should be spent reading and less seeking.

In some situations, ie if you have a high read to write ratio and a high read load, raid1 can actually be faster than raid0.

If you're talking writes then raid1 is slow :)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
taskara
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 10 Apr 2002
Posts: 3763
Location: Australia

PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2004 11:52 pm    Post subject: Re: RAID 0 and 1, root and /home partitions Reply with quote

Crg wrote:
taskara wrote:

yes you are right, I didn't make myself clear - I was referring to using raid1 - if you use raid1 on your /home you will not get any speed increase, but any raid0 partition will give you speed increase.


Just to clear things up abit with raid1.

If you're talking serial disk access - say like testing it with hdparm - then raid1 will be the speed of a single disk (it will be reading off a single disk :) ).

But if you have parallel reads going on, (which is quite often the case when you are actually using your system), the reads will be balanced across the drives - ie you'll be fetching multiple reads at once, plus raid1 has lower average seek times so more time should be spent reading and less seeking.

In some situations, ie if you have a high read to write ratio and a high read load, raid1 can actually be faster than raid0.

If you're talking writes then raid1 is slow :)


yes you are right :)
_________________
Kororaa install method - have Gentoo up and running quickly and easily, fully automated with an installer!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mr_D
n00b
n00b


Joined: 29 Dec 2003
Posts: 6
Location: Marietta, GA

PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2004 7:30 pm    Post subject: Calculating disk space Reply with quote

Thanks, this is great information.

This may be an obvious question, and I need to ask it anyway. I'm wanting to calculate the total gb for each RAID partition, and realized the total storage space may be different depending on whether it's a RAID 0 or RAID 1. Are the following assumptions correct?

For RAID 0
If I create a 30gb partion (both drives), then my total partition storage space is 60gb?

For RAID 1
If I create a 30gb partion (both drives), then my total partition storage space is 30gb?

Thx
_________________
Did you know that 35% of American voters identify themselves as "independents"? Where's our representation? http://www.cuip.org
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
taskara
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 10 Apr 2002
Posts: 3763
Location: Australia

PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2004 10:24 pm    Post subject: Re: Calculating disk space Reply with quote

Mr_D wrote:
Thanks, this is great information.

This may be an obvious question, and I need to ask it anyway. I'm wanting to calculate the total gb for each RAID partition, and realized the total storage space may be different depending on whether it's a RAID 0 or RAID 1. Are the following assumptions correct?

For RAID 0
If I create a 30gb partion (both drives), then my total partition storage space is 60gb?

For RAID 1
If I create a 30gb partion (both drives), then my total partition storage space is 30gb?

Thx


correct
_________________
Kororaa install method - have Gentoo up and running quickly and easily, fully automated with an installer!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Crg
Guru
Guru


Joined: 29 May 2002
Posts: 345
Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2004 2:21 pm    Post subject: Re: RAID 0 and 1, root and /home partitions Reply with quote

Crg wrote:

If you're talking serial disk access - say like testing it with hdparm - then raid1 will be the speed of a single disk (it will be reading off a single disk :) ).


I'd just like to correct myself - this was correct for 2.4 (hdparm showing single disk results) but it appears 2.6 may balance squential reads for raid1 better (not all the time - the results are quite variable - most probably depending on where the heads are and whether there are other reads/writes going on).

first the disks by themselves:
Code:

hdparm -t /dev/hda

/dev/hda:
 Timing buffered disk reads:   86 MB in  3.02 seconds =  28.43 MB/sec


Code:

 hdparm -t /dev/hdb

/dev/hdb:
 Timing buffered disk reads:  102 MB in  3.01 seconds =  33.90 MB/sec


and the the raid1 results:
Code:

hdparm -t /dev/md0

/dev/md0:
 Timing buffered disk reads:  140 MB in  3.02 seconds =  46.29 MB/sec

hdparm -t /dev/md0

/dev/md0:
 Timing buffered disk reads:   86 MB in  3.01 seconds =  28.57 MB/sec


I really need to get around to using a proper benchmark to test this one of these days... ;)


EDIT:
With cfq:
Code:

hdparm -t /dev/md0

/dev/md0:
 Timing buffered disk reads:  144 MB in  3.02 seconds =  47.64 MB/sec
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
suhlhorn
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 22 Jun 2003
Posts: 76
Location: Miami, FL

PostPosted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 6:49 pm    Post subject: unable to boot kernel/RAID array Reply with quote

Okay guys-
Having trouble booting my new RAID0 system. I followed the instructions (excellent how-to, BTW), and was able build the system. I built a 2.6.1 kernel (gentoo-dev-sources), but can't boot it with grub. Here are my boot error messages:
Code:

md:  Autodetecting RAID arrays.
md:  autorun...
md:  ...autorun DONE.
EXT3-fs:  unable to read superblock
EXT2-fs:  unable to read superblock
FAT:  unable to read boot sector
VFS:  Cannot open root device "md/0" or unknown-block(0,0)
Please append a correct "root=" boot option
Kernel panic: VFS: Unable to mount root fs on unknown-block(0,0)


My root fs is reiserfs and I have reiser support built into the kernel (not module).
Here is my raidtab:
Code:

raiddev            /dev/md0
raid-level         0
nr-raid-disks         2
chunk-size         32
persistent-superblock   1
device            /dev/hde3
raid-disk            0
device            /dev/hdg3
raid-disk            1


fstab:
Code:

/dev/hde1      /boot      ext3      noauto,noatime      1 1
# /dev/hdg1      <mountpoint>   ext3      noauto,noatime      1 1
/dev/md/0      /      reiserfs   noatime         0 0
/dev/hde2      none      swap      defaults,pri=1      0 0
/dev/hdg2      none      swap      defaults,pri=1      0 0
/dev/cdroms/cdrom0   /mnt/cdrom   iso9660      noauto,ro      0 0
none         /proc      proc      defaults      0 0
none         /dev/shm   tmpfs      defaults      0 0
none         /dev/pts   devpts      defaults      0 0


And my grub.conf:
Code:

timeout 3
default 0
fallback 1
# splashimage=(hd0,0)/grub/splash.xpm.gz

# RAID-0 kernel
title  Gentoo Linux 2.6.1 (gentoo-dev-sources)
root (hd0,0)
kernel (hd0,0)/linux-2.6.1-gentoo  root=/dev/md/0


I must be missing something simple...anyone have any suggestions? Thanks!
-stephen
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dodga
n00b
n00b


Joined: 20 Mar 2003
Posts: 16

PostPosted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 8:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
/dev/md/0 / reiserfs noatime 0 0


Shouldn it be /dev/md0 ??? :)

btw i am using mdadm, much easier to config....

Dodga
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
taskara
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 10 Apr 2002
Posts: 3763
Location: Australia

PostPosted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 10:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dodga wrote:
Quote:
/dev/md/0 / reiserfs noatime 0 0


Shouldn it be /dev/md0 ??? :)

btw i am using mdadm, much easier to config....

Dodga


yes Dodga is right, but sometimes it does have to be /dev/md/0

try changing it to /dev/md0 and see :)


Dogda, tell me about this mdadm :)
_________________
Kororaa install method - have Gentoo up and running quickly and easily, fully automated with an installer!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
suhlhorn
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 22 Jun 2003
Posts: 76
Location: Miami, FL

PostPosted: Tue Jan 20, 2004 1:23 am    Post subject: /dev/md0 Reply with quote

As I understand it, for 2.6 kernels fstab should be /dev/md/0, but for older 2.4 kernels, it should be /dev/md0.

Anyway, I've tried both and I get the same error messages. Any other suggestions? Thanks for the input.
-stephen
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
suhlhorn
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 22 Jun 2003
Posts: 76
Location: Miami, FL

PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2004 5:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

taskara wrote:

yes Dodga is right, but sometimes it does have to be /dev/md/0

try changing it to /dev/md0 and see :)


Just tried changing it back to /dev/md0, but got the same error messages.

Since I'm installing from Knoppix (kernel 2.4.22), could this be some conflict between the dev naming between the 2.4 knoppix kernel, and the 2.6 kernel that I'm trying to boot?

Thanks-
-stephen
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
taskara
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 10 Apr 2002
Posts: 3763
Location: Australia

PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2004 10:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

suhlhorn wrote:
taskara wrote:

yes Dodga is right, but sometimes it does have to be /dev/md/0

try changing it to /dev/md0 and see :)


Just tried changing it back to /dev/md0, but got the same error messages.

Since I'm installing from Knoppix (kernel 2.4.22), could this be some conflict between the dev naming between the 2.4 knoppix kernel, and the 2.6 kernel that I'm trying to boot?

Thanks-
-stephen


shouldn't be, because when you boot you're in your new gentoo system..

in your kerne you added devfs support? and told it to mount on boot?
_________________
Kororaa install method - have Gentoo up and running quickly and easily, fully automated with an installer!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
suhlhorn
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 22 Jun 2003
Posts: 76
Location: Miami, FL

PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2004 3:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

taskara wrote:

shouldn't be, because when you boot you're in your new gentoo system..

in your kerne you added devfs support? and told it to mount on boot?


yes, and yes. (I already made that mistake on another box!)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
taskara
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 10 Apr 2002
Posts: 3763
Location: Australia

PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2004 10:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hmm.. and you built all the raid drivers directly into your kernel, NOT as modules?

do you still have your raidtab file under /etc?

do you have a copy of it under /boot?
_________________
Kororaa install method - have Gentoo up and running quickly and easily, fully automated with an installer!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Crg
Guru
Guru


Joined: 29 May 2002
Posts: 345
Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2004 11:53 pm    Post subject: Re: unable to boot kernel/RAID array Reply with quote

suhlhorn wrote:
Okay guys-
Having trouble booting my new RAID0 system. I followed the instructions (excellent how-to, BTW), and was able build the system. I built a 2.6.1 kernel (gentoo-dev-sources), but can't boot it with grub. Here are my boot error messages:
Code:

md:  Autodetecting RAID arrays.
md:  autorun...
md:  ...autorun DONE.
EXT3-fs:  unable to read superblock
EXT2-fs:  unable to read superblock
FAT:  unable to read boot sector
VFS:  Cannot open root device "md/0" or unknown-block(0,0)
Please append a correct "root=" boot option
Kernel panic: VFS: Unable to mount root fs on unknown-block(0,0)


Are your raid partitions type "fd"? The output above shows you wouldn't be able to boot on any md device as none were found/setup.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
suhlhorn
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 22 Jun 2003
Posts: 76
Location: Miami, FL

PostPosted: Mon Feb 02, 2004 3:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I finally fixed the box and it seems that the basic problem is that I am a moron. I forgot to include support for my off-board IDE controller in the kernel, so my kernel couldn't find my HD's. Oops.

Thanks for all the suggestions. I really appreciate the help.
-stephen
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Documentation, Tips & Tricks All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 4 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum