× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.


  • Subject: Re: RAID question
  • From: Larry Bolhuis <lbolhui@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 11:21:53 -0400
  • Organization: Arbor Solutions, Inc

Jeff,

  In this case, You WIN!

  Any raid set starts with either 4 (your case) or 8 drives.  The
information needed to recover any ONE failed drive in the set is spread
across the initial drives thus the 4GB units you have report 3GB usable
(1GB each is used for the raid recovery information)  If the set started
at 8 units then the drives would report about 3.5 Usable each.  You can
see that in any set you lose ONE disk of capacity no matter how you
slice it.  The AS/400 can utilize up to 10 drives in a set in either
case.  So when you added the two new drives they were added to the set
you already have.  Since the required RAID space has been reserved on
the first 4 units, the remaining units get to utilize their full size.  
The primary benefit of starting with 8 units instead of four is when a
unit fails, the information needed to 'fake' the failed unit comes from
7 or 8 rather than 3 or 4 units (depending on if the failed unit is one
of the drives with the raid information on it or not).

  hth

  Larry Bolhuis
  Arbor Solutions, Inc
  lbolhui@ibm.net
  

Jeff Carey wrote:
> 
> We just added 2 drives to an S20 that previously had 4 drives on it (one
> RAID set).  I used SST to add the new drives to device parity protection
> and then added them to my ASP.  As we were not adding a full RAID set, I
> expected the system to mirror the devices.  Instead, I see this on the
> WRKDSKSTS display:
> 
>                     --Protection--            --Protected--
> Unit      ASP       Type      Status          Size
> 1         1    DPY       ACTIVE          3145
> 2         1    DPY       ACTIVE          3145
> 3         1    DPY       ACTIVE          3145
> 4         1    DPY       ACTIVE          3145
> 5         1    DPY       ACTIVE          4194
> 6         1    DPY       ACTIVE          4194
> 
> This gives more DASD than if the new drives were irrored, but are they
> really protected?  If so, why am I seeing all 4194 MB?
> We are at V4R1.
> 
> +---
> | This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
> | To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
> | To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
> | To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
> | Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
> +---
+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---


As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.