On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 06:42:18PM -0500, Nate Carlson wrote: > On Thu, 15 May 2003, Nate Carlson wrote: > > Just had a drive go dead (one of the Maxtor 160gb drives) that isn't > > in a hotswap sled.. have to take Gladiator down to swap the drive out. > > > > Should be back up shortly. > > Well, looks like we lost a second drive; the controller started throwing > many CRC errors on a second one of the Maxtor drives when I started the > rebuild. Ugh! Talked to 3ware tech support; they say these Maxtor drives > go bad all the time, and gave us a few suggestions.. waiting to see what > happens on a rebuild. > > The way we've got Gladiator set up, there are two arrays (~600gb Western > Digital, ~800gb Maxtor), and they are in a LVM VG with one big EXT3 > partition across it. The WD drives are first in the VG, then the Maxtor > drives. We've got a total of 320gb of data on Gladiator, so if data is > stored sequentially, all the data *should* be on the WD drives. Anyone > know if it's possible to shrink an ext3 partition when the second half of > it's on a dying disk? And then have to reduce the LVM partition, of > course.. I would not bet on the data being stored sequentially: the inode allocator tries to spread the directory inodes around to reduce fragmentation - if you leave some space between directories A and B, A can grow without getting fragmented. Cheers, florin -- "NT is to UNIX what a doughnut is to a particle accelerator." -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20030515/80f540c1/attachment.pgp