I purchased an Intel D945GNT motherboard and it comes in the BIOS with an option to create a RAID 0 or RAID 1 volumes using my existing two SATA disks. However when installing Centos 4.3 x86_64 I see the the installer recognices the two drives and does not "see" the RAID 0. Is that ok? Should I disable the RAID in the BIOS and then go for a LVM+RAID 0 setup in the installer ? Since it will be a server machine I want to gain the performance of RAID 0 without too much complications (i will use ext3 instead of ReiseFS)
Thanks,
Erick Perez wrote:
I purchased an Intel D945GNT motherboard and it comes in the BIOS with an option to create a RAID 0 or RAID 1 volumes using my existing two SATA disks. However when installing Centos 4.3 x86_64 I see the the installer recognices the two drives and does not "see" the RAID 0. Is that ok? Should I disable the RAID in the BIOS and then go for a LVM+RAID 0 setup in the installer ? Since it will be a server machine I want to gain the performance of RAID 0 without too much complications (i will use ext3 instead of ReiseFS)
Hi Erick.
It's doubtful that your on-board RAID controller is going to work with Linux. Most of the on-board controllers are really nothing more than two SATA channels with the driver (for Windows) providing the RAID functionality. Thus, you're really not gaining hardware RAID, in spite of what you are led to believe by the BIOS options. That's why Linux is reporting it as two drives.
You have two choices: 1) Buy a hardware RAID controller (my choice being the 3ware brand), or 2) use software RAID. Since that's what you'd be getting anyways if you were using this board with Windows and the appropriate driver, you're not losing anything.
FWIW I've had no problems whatsoever when using software RAID. I use it on many of my servers.
Barry
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 05:56:00PM -0400, Barry L. Kline wrote:
Erick Perez wrote: 2) use software RAID. Since that's what you'd be getting anyways if you were using this board with Windows and the appropriate driver, you're not losing anything.
FWIW I've had no problems whatsoever when using software RAID. I use it on many of my servers.
Me neither, and I have plenty of servers with it. It really works like a charm. The only catch regarding grub, but there is plenty of documentation on how to do it.
- -- Rodrigo Barbosa rodrigob@suespammers.org "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
what's the catch with grub? can you point to a web link?
Thanks,
On 5/26/06, Rodrigo Barbosa rodrigob@suespammers.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 05:56:00PM -0400, Barry L. Kline wrote:
Erick Perez wrote: 2) use software RAID. Since that's what you'd be getting anyways if you were using this board with Windows and the appropriate driver, you're not losing anything.
FWIW I've had no problems whatsoever when using software RAID. I use it on many of my servers.
Me neither, and I have plenty of servers with it. It really works like a charm. The only catch regarding grub, but there is plenty of documentation on how to do it.
Rodrigo Barbosa rodrigob@suespammers.org "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEd3u1pdyWzQ5b5ckRAkv7AKCXIM572rhCqsHXvPfDjEyKA1Cu7ACghXis f55O6oylzdcuwn8fUa9Wqlg= =uG97 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Google for "grub raid howto"
On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 05:11:17PM -0500, Erick Perez wrote:
what's the catch with grub? can you point to a web link?
Thanks,
On 5/26/06, Rodrigo Barbosa rodrigob@suespammers.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 05:56:00PM -0400, Barry L. Kline wrote:
Erick Perez wrote: 2) use software RAID. Since that's what you'd be getting anyways if you were using this board with Windows and the appropriate driver, you're not losing anything.
FWIW I've had no problems whatsoever when using software RAID. I use it on many of my servers.
Me neither, and I have plenty of servers with it. It really works like a charm. The only catch regarding grub, but there is plenty of documentation on how to do it.
Rodrigo Barbosa rodrigob@suespammers.org "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEd3u1pdyWzQ5b5ckRAkv7AKCXIM572rhCqsHXvPfDjEyKA1Cu7ACghXis f55O6oylzdcuwn8fUa9Wqlg= =uG97 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
--
Erick Perez Linux User 376588 http://counter.li.org/ (Get counted!!!) Panama, Republic of Panama _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
- -- Rodrigo Barbosa rodrigob@suespammers.org "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
Erick Perez wrote:
what's the catch with grub? can you point to a web link?
Thanks,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 03:26:50PM -0700, Ken Godee wrote:
Erick Perez wrote:
what's the catch with grub? can you point to a web link?
Thanks,
Okey everyone. In case you missed, I AM subscribed to the list. There is no need to send me a copy of the message. I can read it just as well when it gets distributed by mailman.
Geez.
- -- Rodrigo Barbosa rodrigob@suespammers.org "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
Erick Perez wrote:
what's the catch with grub? can you point to a web link?
The short version of the story: The boot loader doesn't get loaded on your secondary drive. So if the primary drive dies you can't boot on the second.
The fix is trivial and is discussed at the links described elsewhere in this thread.
Barry
On Fri, 2006-05-26 at 16:56, Barry L. Kline wrote:
It's doubtful that your on-board RAID controller is going to work with Linux. Most of the on-board controllers are really nothing more than two SATA channels with the driver (for Windows) providing the RAID functionality. Thus, you're really not gaining hardware RAID, in spite of what you are led to believe by the BIOS options. That's why Linux is reporting it as two drives.
You have two choices: 1) Buy a hardware RAID controller (my choice being the 3ware brand), or 2) use software RAID. Since that's what you'd be getting anyways if you were using this board with Windows and the appropriate driver, you're not losing anything.
FWIW I've had no problems whatsoever when using software RAID. I use it on many of my servers.
Note that unless it has changed recently, SATA drives don't pass errors up to the software raid layer correctly. If a drive dies it doesn't get kicked out as it should.
Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, 2006-05-26 at 16:56, Barry L. Kline wrote:
Note that unless it has changed recently, SATA drives don't pass errors up to the software raid layer correctly. If a drive dies it doesn't get kicked out as it should.
Good point. The systems on which I use it are either IDE-based or SCSI-based. The SATA machines I have are all 3ware RAID controller equipped.
Barry
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 07:49:59PM -0400, Barry L. Kline wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, 2006-05-26 at 16:56, Barry L. Kline wrote:
Note that unless it has changed recently, SATA drives don't pass errors up to the software raid layer correctly. If a drive dies it doesn't get kicked out as it should.
Good point. The systems on which I use it are either IDE-based or SCSI-based. The SATA machines I have are all 3ware RAID controller equipped.
Hummm, actually, me too. Softraid only on IDE and SCSI. All my SATA machines are 3ware.
- -- Rodrigo Barbosa rodrigob@suespammers.org "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, 2006-05-26 at 16:56, Barry L. Kline wrote:
Note that unless it has changed recently, SATA drives don't pass errors up to the software raid layer correctly. If a drive dies it doesn't get kicked out as it should.
Would you please elaborate as this seems to run counter to my experience?
I have had 3 drive fail events with software raid (md) tools and SATA drives in the last year. The drive was taken off-line and I as the sysadm received a warning message via email.
I downed the systems (after-hours) and replaced the failed drive. (These machines don't have hot- swappable h/w) No problems were encountered.
Two of these systems are running a WBEL-3 and a 2.4 kernel and haven't been updated in a while. The other was a CentOS-3, same story.
Regards Ray
On Fri, 2006-05-26 at 20:37, Raymond Lillard wrote:
Note that unless it has changed recently, SATA drives don't pass errors up to the software raid layer correctly. If a drive dies it doesn't get kicked out as it should.
Would you please elaborate as this seems to run counter to my experience?
I have had 3 drive fail events with software raid (md) tools and SATA drives in the last year. The drive was taken off-line and I as the sysadm received a warning message via email.
I downed the systems (after-hours) and replaced the failed drive. (These machines don't have hot- swappable h/w) No problems were encountered.
I'm just repeating what I've seen elsewhere - which is that if you have hot-swaps you can yank a drive and it doesn't show as failed in the raid. I don't have any SATA's myself - mine are all SCSI and they have failed correctly. Perhaps it depends on the failure mode.
-
Barry L. Kline -
Erick Perez -
Ken Godee -
Les Mikesell -
Raymond Lillard -
Rodrigo Barbosa