[CentOS] Re: Intel RAID controller -- Is it the FRAID volume? Or just the disk?
Bryan J. Smith
b.j.smith at ieee.orgThu Sep 8 21:42:58 UTC 2005
- Previous message: [CentOS] Intel RAID controller
- Next message: [CentOS] Does anyone use VMWare 4.5.2 on CentOS 4?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mark Belanger <mark_belanger at ltx.com> wrote: > I dont' know - how do I tell? > I fired up a 3.5 install, it saw the disks, and I > installed. What disks did it see? FRAID is just that, fake RAID. The OS sees the actual disks. You have to use a 100% software hack to trick the OS into organizing the disks differently. What I've commonly seen is someone install Linux on a FRAID controller and install to the disks directly, _no_ understanding whatsoever of the FRAID organization. So at next boot, you either can't boot, or the FRAID 16-bit Int13h disk services realizes that the FRAID organizaton has been _destroyed_ and just boots the "raw" disk. If you were dual-booting and had previously installed Windows, it's now _toasted_. Again, support of the "FRAID organization" is required _in_addition_ to the "ATA/SATA" channels. The ICH5/6/7 ATA channel might be supported, but the kernel utterly ignores the FRAID organization. You have to be very careful. > Creating a 100Meg files seems pretty good: > time dd if=/dev/zero of=/var/tmp/blah bs=1024 count=100000 > 100000+0 records in > 100000+0 records out But what devices? Give me an output of "dmesg" and "df". Now based on those devices, give me an output of "fdisk -l" on each. We could also look at the /proc filesystem after that. -- Bryan J. Smith | Sent from Yahoo Mail mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org | (please excuse any http://thebs413.blogspot.com/ | missing headers)
- Previous message: [CentOS] Intel RAID controller
- Next message: [CentOS] Does anyone use VMWare 4.5.2 on CentOS 4?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the CentOS mailing list