RAID1 - what happens if your motherboard RAID controller dies? - Storage

This is a discussion on RAID1 - what happens if your motherboard RAID controller dies? - Storage ; On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 10:23:47 -0400, Yousuf Khan wrote: >Frank wrote: >> Good discussion, learned a lot of it, since I've got the same thoughts >> like starter clangers_.... >> Question: To me it seems like ICH9R from Intel ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 66

Thread: RAID1 - what happens if your motherboard RAID controller dies?

  1. Re: RAID1 - what happens if your motherboard RAID controller dies?

    On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 10:23:47 -0400, Yousuf Khan
    wrote:

    >Frank wrote:
    >> Good discussion, learned a lot of it, since I've got the same thoughts
    >> like starter clangers_....
    >> Question: To me it seems like ICH9R from Intel is popular at the
    >> moment for constructing RAIDs. Might be true or not. But, given the
    >> ICH9R, where does it put these metadata? Does anybody know? Any
    >> experiences anybody about pulling off one RAID1-drive from an ICH9R to
    >> whatever SATA-connector? Does this single special thing out of the big
    >> variety of RAID-Levels and controllers work?

    >
    >These days, there are only a few possibilities of where the metadata is
    >written to. One would be to one of the 4 primary partitions. The second
    >place would be to one of the multiple extended partitions. The last
    >possibility is that it is not written to a visible partition anywhere,
    >but just that the partitions have been edited short by one cylinder and
    >it keeps everything in that invisible last cylinder.
    >
    > Yousuf Khan


    It is impossible for it to be written to any "partition"
    structure as a new disk defined as member of an array may
    not even have any partitions on it yet, and in cases of
    arrays other than a mirror, the partitions would have to be
    recreated anyway.

  2. Re: RAID1 - what happens if your motherboard RAID controller dies?

    On 2 Jun 2008 15:47:48 GMT, Arno Wagner
    wrote:

    >In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Yousuf Khan wrote:
    >> Frank wrote:
    >>> Good discussion, learned a lot of it, since I've got the same thoughts
    >>> like starter clangers_....
    >>> Question: To me it seems like ICH9R from Intel is popular at the
    >>> moment for constructing RAIDs. Might be true or not. But, given the
    >>> ICH9R, where does it put these metadata? Does anybody know? Any
    >>> experiences anybody about pulling off one RAID1-drive from an ICH9R to
    >>> whatever SATA-connector? Does this single special thing out of the big
    >>> variety of RAID-Levels and controllers work?

    >
    >> These days, there are only a few possibilities of where the metadata is
    >> written to. One would be to one of the 4 primary partitions. The second
    >> place would be to one of the multiple extended partitions. The last
    >> possibility is that it is not written to a visible partition anywhere,
    >> but just that the partitions have been edited short by one cylinder and
    >> it keeps everything in that invisible last cylinder.

    >
    >It is never written to partitions. There is no space for it.
    >It also hast to go to all disks (RAID1) or at least to two
    >(RAID5) or three (RAID6) disks. ALso cylinders have gone out
    >of fashion a long time ago. Today you just shorten the disk by one
    >or two sectors.


    On any drive config besides a single drive span, the
    metadata has to be written to every disk, including spares.

  3. Re: RAID1 - what happens if your motherboard RAID controller dies?

    On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 20:23:56 +0100, "Squeeze"
    wrote:

    >Arno Wagner wrote in news:6aij14F37m836U1@mid.individual.net
    >> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Yousuf Khan wrote:
    >> > Frank wrote:
    >> > > Good discussion, learned a lot of it, since I've got the same thoughts
    >> > > like starter clangers_....
    >> > > Question: To me it seems like ICH9R from Intel is popular at the
    >> > > moment for constructing RAIDs. Might be true or not. But, given the
    >> > > ICH9R, where does it put these metadata? Does anybody know? Any
    >> > > experiences anybody about pulling off one RAID1-drive from an ICH9R to
    >> > > whatever SATA-connector? Does this single special thing out of the big
    >> > > variety of RAID-Levels and controllers work?

    >>
    >> > These days, there are only a few possibilities of where the metadata is
    >> > written to. One would be to one of the 4 primary partitions. The second
    >> > place would be to one of the multiple extended partitions. The last
    >> > possibility is that it is not written to a visible partition anywhere,
    >> > but just that the partitions have been edited short by one cylinder and
    >> > it keeps everything in that invisible last cylinder.

    >
    >> It is never written to partitions.

    >
    >How about software RAID, Babblebot.


    On software raid it is the same, especially so with software
    raid since it tends not to have any NV memory onboard
    besides the bios so metadata would be the only way to keep
    track of drives.



  4. Re: RAID1 - what happens if your motherboard RAID controller dies?

    On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 20:05:52 +0100, "Squeeze"
    wrote:


    >What the OP is looking for is not 'can' as in 'maybe' but 'will'
    >as in 'definetely'.


    If you want guarantees in life, sorry even things that are
    supposed to work don't always... but addressing the question
    it is not a problem assuming everything else works as it's
    supposed to. By the same token you can't assume using a
    non-raid drive on a 2nd non-raid system is guaranteed to
    work either, only that it is supposed to work based upon the
    standard they are designed under. Similarly you can't
    assume all AGP video cards will work on any random
    motherboard even if the tech (slot type, voltage, etc) is
    supposed to be compatible.

    The real solution isn't being able to move a raid drive and
    get data, it's to see that raid is meant for constant uptime
    of the volume and that a separate offline backup of that
    data is prudent in addition to the array.

  5. Re: RAID1 - what happens if your motherboard RAID controller dies?

    kony wrote in news:cckb445v1i1gsjenbj9r9okd5g5c8147hk@4ax.com
    > On 2 Jun 2008 15:47:48 GMT, Arno Wagner
    > wrote:
    >
    > > In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Yousuf Khan wrote:
    > > > Frank wrote:
    > > > > Good discussion, learned a lot of it, since I've got the same thoughts
    > > > > like starter clangers_....
    > > > > Question: To me it seems like ICH9R from Intel is popular at the
    > > > > moment for constructing RAIDs. Might be true or not. But, given the
    > > > > ICH9R, where does it put these metadata? Does anybody know? Any
    > > > > experiences anybody about pulling off one RAID1-drive from an ICH9R to
    > > > > whatever SATA-connector? Does this single special thing out of the big
    > > > > variety of RAID-Levels and controllers work?

    > >
    > > > These days, there are only a few possibilities of where the metadata is
    > > > written to. One would be to one of the 4 primary partitions. The second
    > > > place would be to one of the multiple extended partitions. The last
    > > > possibility is that it is not written to a visible partition anywhere,
    > > > but just that the partitions have been edited short by one cylinder and
    > > > it keeps everything in that invisible last cylinder.

    > >
    > > It is never written to partitions. There is no space for it.
    > > It also hast to go to all disks (RAID1) or at least to two
    > > (RAID5) or three (RAID6) disks. ALso cylinders have gone out
    > > of fashion a long time ago. Today you just shorten the disk by one
    > > or two sectors.


    > On any drive config besides a single drive span,


    Whatever that is supposed to extra clarify.
    One more of your mystifying sentences, as always.

    > the metadata has to be written to every disk, including spares.


  6. Re: RAID1 - what happens if your motherboard RAID controller dies?

    kony wrote in news:idkb445kl2k9l1399aj69g776200r29lnv@4ax.com
    > On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 20:23:56 +0100, "Squeeze" wrote:
    > > Arno Wagner wrote in news:6aij14F37m836U1@mid.individual.net
    > > > In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Yousuf Khan wrote:
    > > > > Frank wrote:
    > > > > > Good discussion, learned a lot of it, since I've got the same thoughts
    > > > > > like starter clangers_....
    > > > > > Question: To me it seems like ICH9R from Intel is popular at the
    > > > > > moment for constructing RAIDs. Might be true or not. But, given the
    > > > > > ICH9R, where does it put these metadata? Does anybody know? Any
    > > > > > experiences anybody about pulling off one RAID1-drive from an ICH9R to
    > > > > > whatever SATA-connector? Does this single special thing out of the big
    > > > > > variety of RAID-Levels and controllers work?
    > > >
    > > > > These days, there are only a few possibilities of where the metadata is
    > > > > written to. One would be to one of the 4 primary partitions. The second
    > > > > place would be to one of the multiple extended partitions. The last
    > > > > possibility is that it is not written to a visible partition anywhere,
    > > > > but just that the partitions have been edited short by one cylinder and
    > > > > it keeps everything in that invisible last cylinder.

    > >
    > > > It is never written to partitions.

    > >
    > > How about software RAID, Babblebot.


    > On software raid it is the same,


    What "it" is the same.
    (And before you start ranting again: no that is not a question mark at
    the end of that sentence).

    > especially so with software raid since it tends not to have any NV
    > memory onboard besides the bios so metadata would be the only way
    > to keep track of drives.


    The question was about where the data is written on the disks, not
    whether it is written to the disks.
    Pity you can software RAID partitions too and last I heard sectors
    within partitions are just as (non)volatile as those outside partitions.


  7. Re: RAID1 - what happens if your motherboard RAID controller dies?

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage kony wrote:
    > On 2 Jun 2008 15:47:48 GMT, Arno Wagner
    > wrote:


    >>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Yousuf Khan wrote:
    >>> Frank wrote:
    >>>> Good discussion, learned a lot of it, since I've got the same thoughts
    >>>> like starter clangers_....
    >>>> Question: To me it seems like ICH9R from Intel is popular at the
    >>>> moment for constructing RAIDs. Might be true or not. But, given the
    >>>> ICH9R, where does it put these metadata? Does anybody know? Any
    >>>> experiences anybody about pulling off one RAID1-drive from an ICH9R to
    >>>> whatever SATA-connector? Does this single special thing out of the big
    >>>> variety of RAID-Levels and controllers work?

    >>
    >>> These days, there are only a few possibilities of where the metadata is
    >>> written to. One would be to one of the 4 primary partitions. The second
    >>> place would be to one of the multiple extended partitions. The last
    >>> possibility is that it is not written to a visible partition anywhere,
    >>> but just that the partitions have been edited short by one cylinder and
    >>> it keeps everything in that invisible last cylinder.

    >>
    >>It is never written to partitions. There is no space for it.
    >>It also hast to go to all disks (RAID1) or at least to two
    >>(RAID5) or three (RAID6) disks. ALso cylinders have gone out
    >>of fashion a long time ago. Today you just shorten the disk by one
    >>or two sectors.


    > On any drive config besides a single drive span, the
    > metadata has to be written to every disk, including spares.


    No, it does not have to. It is just far easier and safer
    to do it that way, so everybody does it.

    Arno



  8. Re: RAID1 - what happens if your motherboard RAID controller dies?

    On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 01:22:38 +0100, "Squeeze"
    wrote:

    >kony wrote in news:idkb445kl2k9l1399aj69g776200r29lnv@4ax.com
    >> On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 20:23:56 +0100, "Squeeze" wrote:
    >> > Arno Wagner wrote in news:6aij14F37m836U1@mid.individual.net
    >> > > In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Yousuf Khan wrote:
    >> > > > Frank wrote:
    >> > > > > Good discussion, learned a lot of it, since I've got the same thoughts
    >> > > > > like starter clangers_....
    >> > > > > Question: To me it seems like ICH9R from Intel is popular at the
    >> > > > > moment for constructing RAIDs. Might be true or not. But, given the
    >> > > > > ICH9R, where does it put these metadata? Does anybody know? Any
    >> > > > > experiences anybody about pulling off one RAID1-drive from an ICH9R to
    >> > > > > whatever SATA-connector? Does this single special thing out of the big
    >> > > > > variety of RAID-Levels and controllers work?
    >> > >
    >> > > > These days, there are only a few possibilities of where the metadata is
    >> > > > written to. One would be to one of the 4 primary partitions. The second
    >> > > > place would be to one of the multiple extended partitions. The last
    >> > > > possibility is that it is not written to a visible partition anywhere,
    >> > > > but just that the partitions have been edited short by one cylinder and
    >> > > > it keeps everything in that invisible last cylinder.
    >> >
    >> > > It is never written to partitions.
    >> >
    >> > How about software RAID, Babblebot.

    >
    >> On software raid it is the same,

    >
    >What "it" is the same.
    >(And before you start ranting again: no that is not a question mark at
    >the end of that sentence).


    Oh, well, have a free one on me: ?

    If you don't know what, note that I left the text above for
    your reading pleasure.


  9. Re: RAID1 - what happens if your motherboard RAID controller dies?

    On 4 Jun 2008 00:27:49 GMT, Arno Wagner
    wrote:

    >In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage kony wrote:
    >> On 2 Jun 2008 15:47:48 GMT, Arno Wagner
    >> wrote:

    >
    >>>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Yousuf Khan wrote:
    >>>> Frank wrote:
    >>>>> Good discussion, learned a lot of it, since I've got the same thoughts
    >>>>> like starter clangers_....
    >>>>> Question: To me it seems like ICH9R from Intel is popular at the
    >>>>> moment for constructing RAIDs. Might be true or not. But, given the
    >>>>> ICH9R, where does it put these metadata? Does anybody know? Any
    >>>>> experiences anybody about pulling off one RAID1-drive from an ICH9R to
    >>>>> whatever SATA-connector? Does this single special thing out of the big
    >>>>> variety of RAID-Levels and controllers work?
    >>>
    >>>> These days, there are only a few possibilities of where the metadata is
    >>>> written to. One would be to one of the 4 primary partitions. The second
    >>>> place would be to one of the multiple extended partitions. The last
    >>>> possibility is that it is not written to a visible partition anywhere,
    >>>> but just that the partitions have been edited short by one cylinder and
    >>>> it keeps everything in that invisible last cylinder.
    >>>
    >>>It is never written to partitions. There is no space for it.
    >>>It also hast to go to all disks (RAID1) or at least to two
    >>>(RAID5) or three (RAID6) disks. ALso cylinders have gone out
    >>>of fashion a long time ago. Today you just shorten the disk by one
    >>>or two sectors.

    >
    >> On any drive config besides a single drive span, the
    >> metadata has to be written to every disk, including spares.

    >
    >No, it does not have to. It is just far easier and safer
    >to do it that way, so everybody does it.



    Oh? Then how do you propose that the drives are identified
    as members of the array? I'll grant you that it would be
    possible for a (typically hardware) controller to record
    drive serial number into an onboard non-volatile memory
    area, and by doing so it would not require metadata to be
    written to any drive, so in that case what I wrote was
    wrong. However in the case where that were true there would
    be a requirement to keep the drives with the specific raid
    controller, even an otherwise identical controller wouldn't
    work with an existing array, and that is a situation a
    designer would not want to cause so I must ask for some
    example of a controller with array members where some but
    not all have metadata.



  10. Re: RAID1 - what happens if your motherboard RAID controller dies?

    On Jun 3, 8:27 pm, Arno Wagner wrote:
    > > On any drive config besides a single drive span, the
    > > metadata has to be written to every disk, including spares.

    >
    > No, it does not have to. It is just far easier and safer
    > to do it that way, so everybody does it.


    When I used to administer Sun Solaris systems, we used to use one of
    two RAID management tools, Veritas Volume Manager (now owned by
    Symantec), and Sun's own Disksuite (now ironically also called "Volume
    Manager", I guess there are no trademark issues between the two
    companies). The Veritas product was far more of a wizardy-type product
    where it setup everything in a standard way which you had little or no
    control over. But the Sun product was much more controllable on the
    low-level. You could chose your own metadata partitions and their
    locations, and which disks you chose to put them on. The metadata was
    replicated on every disk in Veritas, but you didn't have to do that in
    Disksuite. It was best to have them spread out over a minimum of 3
    disks for quorum purposes, and that's all.

    Yousuf Khan

  11. Re: RAID1 - what happens if your motherboard RAID controller dies?

    Arno Wagner wrote:
    > In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Yousuf Khan wrote:
    > ...
    >> These days, there are only a few possibilities of where the metadata is
    >> written to. One would be to one of the 4 primary partitions. The second
    >> place would be to one of the multiple extended partitions. The last
    >> possibility is that it is not written to a visible partition anywhere,
    >> but just that the partitions have been edited short by one cylinder and
    >> it keeps everything in that invisible last cylinder.

    >
    > It is never written to partitions. There is no space for it.
    > It also hast to go to all disks (RAID1) or at least to two
    > (RAID5) or three (RAID6) disks. ALso cylinders have gone out
    > of fashion a long time ago. Today you just shorten the disk by one
    > or two sectors.
    >


    Hi Arno,

    that is true, but probably some more space is needed :-)

    Quote from DDF 1.2 spec, section 5.1:

    "A DDF structure MUST reside on every physical disk that participates in
    a RAID configuration in a RAID storage subsystem. A minimum of 32MB MUST
    be reserved on each physical disk for a DDF structure. The last block of
    the reserved space MUST be the last addressable block of the physical disk."

    For details, see SNIA-DDFv1.2.pdf at:
    http://www.snia.org/tech_activities/..._standards/ddf

    Christian

  12. Re: RAID1 - what happens if your motherboard RAID controller dies?

    Christian Franke wrote in news:48499A61.3030307@t-online.de
    > Arno Wagner wrote:
    > > In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Yousuf Khan wrote:
    > > ...
    > > > These days, there are only a few possibilities of where the metadata is
    > > > written to. One would be to one of the 4 primary partitions. The second
    > > > place would be to one of the multiple extended partitions. The last
    > > > possibility is that it is not written to a visible partition anywhere,
    > > > but just that the partitions have been edited short by one cylinder and
    > > > it keeps everything in that invisible last cylinder.

    > >
    > > It is never written to partitions. There is no space for it.
    > > It also hast to go to all disks (RAID1) or at least to two
    > > (RAID5) or three (RAID6) disks. ALso cylinders have gone out
    > > of fashion a long time ago. Today you just shorten the disk by one
    > > or two sectors.
    > >


    > Hi Arno,


    His name is Babblebot.

    > that is true,


    What "that".

    > but probably some more space is needed :-)


    So "that" is *not* true then.

    >
    > Quote from DDF 1.2 spec, section 5.1:
    >
    > "A DDF structure MUST reside on every physical disk that participates in
    > a RAID configuration in a RAID storage subsystem. A minimum of 32MB MUST
    > be reserved on each physical disk for a DDF structure. The last block of
    > the reserved space MUST be the last addressable block of the physical disk."


    Really?
    Well, Babblebot was merely some 64000 sectors off then. Or 4 cylinders or so.

    >
    > For details, see SNIA-DDFv1.2.pdf at:
    > http://www.snia.org/tech_activities/..._standards/ddf
    >
    > Christian


  13. Re: RAID1 - what happens if your motherboard RAID controller dies?

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Christian Franke wrote:
    > Arno Wagner wrote:
    >> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Yousuf Khan wrote:
    >> ...
    >>> These days, there are only a few possibilities of where the metadata is
    >>> written to. One would be to one of the 4 primary partitions. The second
    >>> place would be to one of the multiple extended partitions. The last
    >>> possibility is that it is not written to a visible partition anywhere,
    >>> but just that the partitions have been edited short by one cylinder and
    >>> it keeps everything in that invisible last cylinder.

    >>
    >> It is never written to partitions. There is no space for it.
    >> It also hast to go to all disks (RAID1) or at least to two
    >> (RAID5) or three (RAID6) disks. ALso cylinders have gone out
    >> of fashion a long time ago. Today you just shorten the disk by one
    >> or two sectors.
    >>


    > Hi Arno,


    > that is true, but probably some more space is needed :-)


    > Quote from DDF 1.2 spec, section 5.1:


    > "A DDF structure MUST reside on every physical disk that participates in
    > a RAID configuration in a RAID storage subsystem. A minimum of 32MB MUST
    > be reserved on each physical disk for a DDF structure. The last block of
    > the reserved space MUST be the last addressable block of the physical disk."


    > For details, see SNIA-DDFv1.2.pdf at:
    > http://www.snia.org/tech_activities/..._standards/ddf


    > Christian


    Oh, there is space on the disk that can be used, but there is
    no reason why the whle disks would need to be partitioned.
    The way this is done is by hiding some sectors of the disk and
    possibly remapping the rest. Partitioning is done after and does
    not touch the hidden sectors.

    Side note: I have ni idea what DDF is (and no need to find out,
    since I have never heard the term before ;-), but you can
    hide an arbitrary amount of space. Linux software RAID
    uses a few kB.

    Arno

  14. Re: RAID1 - what happens if your motherboard RAID controller dies?

    Arno Wagner wrote in news:6aucp9F39fpriU2@mid.individual.net
    > In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Christian Franke wrote:
    > > Arno Wagner wrote:
    > > > In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Yousuf Khan wrote:
    > > > ...
    > > > > These days, there are only a few possibilities of where the metadata is
    > > > > written to. One would be to one of the 4 primary partitions. The second
    > > > > place would be to one of the multiple extended partitions. The last
    > > > > possibility is that it is not written to a visible partition anywhere,
    > > > > but just that the partitions have been edited short by one cylinder and
    > > > > it keeps everything in that invisible last cylinder.
    > > >
    > > > It is never written to partitions. There is no space for it.
    > > > It also hast to go to all disks (RAID1) or at least to two
    > > > (RAID5) or three (RAID6) disks. ALso cylinders have gone out
    > > > of fashion a long time ago. Today you just shorten the disk by one
    > > > or two sectors.
    > > >

    >
    > > Hi Arno,

    >
    > > that is true, but probably some more space is needed :-)

    >
    > > Quote from DDF 1.2 spec, section 5.1:

    >
    > > "A DDF structure MUST reside on every physical disk that participates in
    > > a RAID configuration in a RAID storage subsystem. A minimum of 32MB MUST
    > > be reserved on each physical disk for a DDF structure. The last block of
    > > the reserved space MUST be the last addressable block of the physical disk."

    >
    > > For details, see SNIA-DDFv1.2.pdf at:
    > > http://www.snia.org/tech_activities/..._standards/ddf

    >
    > > Christian


    > Oh, there is space on the disk that can be used, but there is
    > no reason why the whle disks would need to be partitioned.
    > The way this is done is by hiding some sectors of the disk and
    > possibly remapping the rest. Partitioning is done after and does
    > not touch the hidden sectors.
    >
    > Side note: I have ni idea what DDF is (and no need to find out,
    > since I have never heard the term before ;-), but you can
    > hide an arbitrary amount of space. Linux software RAID
    > uses a few kB.


    There, that should teach you to not take that babblebot seriously,
    ever again.

    >
    > Arno


  15. Re: RAID1 - what happens if your motherboard RAID controller dies?

    Arno Wagner wrote:
    > In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Christian Franke <...> wrote:
    > ...
    >> Hi Arno,

    >
    >> that is true, but probably some more space is needed :-)

    >
    >> Quote from DDF 1.2 spec, section 5.1:

    >
    >> "A DDF structure MUST reside on every physical disk that participates in
    >> a RAID configuration in a RAID storage subsystem. A minimum of 32MB MUST
    >> be reserved on each physical disk for a DDF structure. The last block of
    >> the reserved space MUST be the last addressable block of the physical disk."

    >
    >> For details, see SNIA-DDFv1.2.pdf at:
    >> http://www.snia.org/tech_activities/..._standards/ddf

    >
    >> Christian

    > ...
    > Side note: I have ni idea what DDF is (and no need to find out,
    > since I have never heard the term before ;-), but you can
    > hide an arbitrary amount of space. Linux software RAID
    > uses a few kB.
    >


    Common RAID Disk Data Format (DDF) is an effort to standardize RAID in
    order to provide interoperability between different vendors. It
    specifies RAID levels 0-6, with several flavors of RAID 5.

    AFIAK, this format is used at least by some recent Adaptec (and ICP)
    controllers. There is also a DDF "white paper" from Intel, so this
    format may also be used by some Intel controllers. Linux dmraid is able
    to detect DDF metadata.

    So there may probably be some "need to find out" before further
    discussions :-)


    @OP: DDF RAID1 does no sector remapping, see section 4.2.2 of the spec.
    As a consequence, a disk from a DDF RAID1 array can be accessed as a
    single disk on a foreign controller. The metadata block will appear as
    unpartitioned space at the end of the disk.

    I have seen this layout also on other non-DDF controllers, e.g. 3ware.

    Christian

  16. Re: RAID1 - what happens if your motherboard RAID controller dies?

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Christian Franke wrote:
    > Arno Wagner wrote:
    >> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Christian Franke <...> wrote:
    >> ...
    >>> Hi Arno,

    >>
    >>> that is true, but probably some more space is needed :-)

    >>
    >>> Quote from DDF 1.2 spec, section 5.1:

    >>
    >>> "A DDF structure MUST reside on every physical disk that participates in
    >>> a RAID configuration in a RAID storage subsystem. A minimum of 32MB MUST
    >>> be reserved on each physical disk for a DDF structure. The last block of
    >>> the reserved space MUST be the last addressable block of the physical disk."

    >>
    >>> For details, see SNIA-DDFv1.2.pdf at:
    >>> http://www.snia.org/tech_activities/..._standards/ddf

    >>
    >>> Christian

    >> ...
    >> Side note: I have ni idea what DDF is (and no need to find out,
    >> since I have never heard the term before ;-), but you can
    >> hide an arbitrary amount of space. Linux software RAID
    >> uses a few kB.
    >>


    > Common RAID Disk Data Format (DDF) is an effort to standardize RAID in
    > order to provide interoperability between different vendors. It
    > specifies RAID levels 0-6, with several flavors of RAID 5.


    Aha. Interesting.

    > AFIAK, this format is used at least by some recent Adaptec (and ICP)
    > controllers. There is also a DDF "white paper" from Intel, so this
    > format may also be used by some Intel controllers. Linux dmraid is able
    > to detect DDF metadata.


    > So there may probably be some "need to find out" before further
    > discussions :-)


    When I find the time.

    > @OP: DDF RAID1 does no sector remapping, see section 4.2.2 of the spec.
    > As a consequence, a disk from a DDF RAID1 array can be accessed as a
    > single disk on a foreign controller. The metadata block will appear as
    > unpartitioned space at the end of the disk.


    > I have seen this layout also on other non-DDF controllers, e.g. 3ware.


    Linux software RAID also does this. (Note that dmraid is not
    Linux software RAID). I believe the main reason for placing
    the metadata at the start (as some older controllers do) was
    intentional incompatibility.

    Arno

  17. Re: RAID1 - what happens if your motherboard RAID controller dies?

    Squeeze wrote:
    >
    > kony wrote in news:68qu34dt9g2ivrmce0qbh285ctauedu7ma@4ax.com
    > > On Fri, 30 May 2008 00:30:53 +0100, "Squeeze" wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > > > And now you are missing the point. I never mentioned the user data.
    > > > I mentioned the metadata and how that could be a reason why the
    > > > drive would be rejected. Whatever more you read into that is of
    > > > your own fault.

    > >
    > > You keep thinking ...

    >
    > Looking in the mirror boy?
    > You really need to replace that broken record, boy.



    Hello, Folkert:

    And >you< really need to get a new "record", entirely, girl. Your
    guileless imitations of Rod Speed's writing style impress nobody,
    at all.

    As always.


    Cordially,
    John Turco

  18. Re: RAID1 - what happens if your motherboard RAID controller dies?

    Shadow36 wrote:
    >
    > "kony" wrote in message
    > news:68qu34dt9g2ivrmce0qbh285ctauedu7ma@4ax.com...
    > > On Fri, 30 May 2008 00:30:53 +0100, "Squeeze"
    > > wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >>And now you are missing the point. I never mentioned the user data.
    > >>I mentioned the metadata and how that could be a reason why the
    > >>drive would be rejected. Whatever more you read into that is of
    > >>your own fault.




    > > Just try it already. There is one more significant reason
    > > why the data access would be a problem, that is if some of
    > > Intel's screwy Maxtrix schemes were used instead of a
    > > straight textbook RAID1. In that case a compatible Intel
    > > Matrix controller would have to be used for some if not all
    > > of the data. I have not nor am I likely to use these
    > > special Maxtrix modes (for exactly this reason) so I don't
    > > know how that would turn out.

    >
    > I wouldn't waste too much of your time trying to explain things to
    > this troll. He looks like he's another one of those "never wrong"
    > people.



    Hello, Shadow36:

    "Squeeze" is actually Folkert Rienstra,
    who's a notorious, Dutch Usenet troll.


    Cordially,
    John Turco

  19. Re: RAID1 - what happens if your motherboard RAID controller dies?

    On Jun 2, 2:59 pm, "Squeeze" wrote:
    > Says Yousuf Khan, comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage kOOk of the year Award nominee.


    Squeeze, I know you enjoy proudly showing off your generally low IQ,
    but why lash out at the world due to your father ass-raping you as a
    kid? Aren't there other ways of dealing with your sad predicament?
    Counseling, anti-depressants, etc.?

    > > motherboard RAID is not really "hardware RAID".
    > > It still uses the system processor to do the RAIDing.
    > > The software just exists inside the BIOS

    >
    > Gee, maybe because that is what BIOS means?


    Gee, mongoloid-boy, you've read something about this BIOS, and now
    you're showing off to the world that you know what it means? I'm so
    proud for you, everybody needs hope.

    > > as opposed to inside a Windows device driver,

    >
    > Like that doesn't use the system processor.


    Now, now, Squeeze, it's time for some reading comprehension studies,
    you've made so much progress otherwise. I have said Windows and BIOS
    make use of the central processor.

    > Or the driver just uses some of the 32-bit routines supplied by the bios
    > and not know of any array structures, very similar to hardware assisted
    > RAID.


    No, not a chance! The Windows drivers would never make use of routines
    inside the BIOS, as the BIOS routines are written for the Real Mode of
    the processor, whereas Windows operates in Protected Mode. Real Mode
    routines will never work once the processor enters Protected Mode.
    Windows device drivers are basically translations of the BIOS routines
    from Real Mode to Protected Mode. The BIOS will pass some data
    structures stored in memory off to the Windows device drivers, but
    once those structures have been passed, the BIOS is ignored and
    essentially shut down, while the Windows device drivers take over all
    of the hardware I/O.

    > No difference there, whether single drive, firmware RAID
    > or Hardware assisted RAID.


    Listen homo erectus, who can take you seriously, if you don't even
    know the difference between hardware raid and firmware raid?

    Go get educated first, or stop coming here, we don't need your idiotic
    rants here.

    Yousuf Khan

  20. Re: RAID1 - what happens if your motherboard RAID controller dies?


    >
    > No, not a chance! The Windows drivers would never make use of routines
    > inside the BIOS, as the BIOS routines are written for the Real Mode of
    > the processor, whereas Windows operates in Protected Mode. Real Mode
    > routines will never work once the processor enters Protected Mode.
    > Windows device drivers are basically translations of the BIOS routines
    > from Real Mode to Protected Mode. The BIOS will pass some data
    > structures stored in memory off to the Windows device drivers, but
    > once those structures have been passed, the BIOS is ignored and
    > essentially shut down, while the Windows device drivers take over all
    > of the hardware I/O.
    >

    I posted earlier about deleting Raid.. I will have no problem with
    reinstalling the os then Right? The Bios will allow acces to the dvd drive.
    even though I have a clean system.? I know it is a stupid question, but I
    always wondered when someone built a computer how they ever get to load the
    driver for the External drives to install the OS?

    Dan



+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast