Talk:Mdadm

Keep it. This content is not a man page, but a description of the term/name. The newly added description of it's function will help people looking to find out why they might have it, or if it should be shelved on their system. It is a good thing.

(IMHO)Jrbeaman (talk) 03:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Name

The original name was Mirror Disk when only mirroring on complete spindles was supported. As MD has increased in power it is now called Multiple Device to reflect that different RAID (and non-RAID) levels are supported on any block-structured device such as a disk, partition or USB stick. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Re-vamping Quick Refererence

I'm working on cleaning up the quick reference, see My sandbox. Please leave any comments here or on My talk. Editing is not yet complete, I will announce it here when I am happy with the results. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The first draft is now complete in my sandbox. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Sandbox copy now inserted as live page. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Increasing RAID5 Performance section is wrong

echo 16384 > /sys/block/md0/md/stripe_cache_size 
blockdev --setra 16384 /dev/md0

I tried this and it actually dropped my read speed from 212 MB/s to 192 MB/s

I scaled back the setra number to 4096: blockdev --setra 4096 /dev/md0;

and now my speed is restored.--71.194.190.179 (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Would you care to work on this section? The section was originally added by 67.174.60.55 and since I can't easily test it I have left it alone. To be fair, did you note the comment: "This tip assumes sufficient RAM availability to the system. Insufficient RAM can lead to data loss/corruption"? You might need to check that there are no issues on your machine due to memory depletion. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I have a system with raid 5 over 7*2TB disks and 8GB of ram that should be ok for testing right? The bad part is that initially i could not even make the setting, but i probably just have to un-mount the file system first. And second the test suggested with dd only tests liniair speed, not random access. --Robin den hertog (talk) 07:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely none of this discussion has any bearing on an encyclopedia article, and this discussion page is not a filesystem tips forum.Dfeuer (talk) 01:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Purge

This article was mostly how-to material, as was noted back in 2010. Nobody did anything about that, so I decided to be bold and just delete it all. If someone wants to move it to Wikibooks or Wikiversity, they're welcome to cut and paste from the page history.Dfeuer (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I have now copied the original article to Wikiversity.Dfeuer (talk) 02:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Dfeuer: Without going into too much detail of how I philosophize regarding what wikipedia is and is not, I would call a very big shenanigans on your extremely ill advised solo flight into reverting this article into a dumbed down product stub. Wikipedia is more than a collection of blog entries on available "things". The fact that it can include "Howto" like entries is one of the very big assets of an open encyclopedia. And to be fair, I'll counter any reply by asserting that I do not give two shitsome as to whether some policy or your own opinion says different. This was an awesome article before that demonstrated not only the great software that mdadm is, but also highlighted ---in detail--- its various abilities. Go right ahead and dumb this place down as well. As I said: I don't give one too many. And, I won't stop you. That's just the way the cookie crumbles in this day and age. Just people on solo flights, not giving a crap about what use a given thing maybe to others. Frankly, I am appalled. 91.96.231.235 (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me for ranting on. But, I guess I need to explain why I'm not engaging in some stupid revert war with this dumbo, who obviously knows not a thing about the item at hand. It's because, I'd be reverted in turn, he'll whine about the "omg, your only an IP" thing and it'll just be another sob story on wikipedia. I know there is some excellent stuff on wikipedia. But, it's mostly the entries that are somewhat hidden from view as it were. How can wikipedia ever hope to actually "compete" with the likes of Britannica if not by departing from the classical idea of an "honorable" encyclopedia. No knowledge should be regarded too lowly or unworthy to include. I have always loved the way that you could get actual hands on info on this blog. However, I find it is being shoved down the pipe by control fanatics who think they incorporate the grant idea of what this is all about. It is a crying shame, because people like Dfeuer prevent me from seeing the worthy info others put on here. Geez, he's not even considering how well written this was. I absolutely cannot believe it. Wikipedia is slowly sucking up to something, and I don't know what it is yet at this point. 91.96.231.235 (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The policy is pretty clear, the content of this article doesn't belong here. Moving it to a more appropriate wiki, like WP's sister site Wikibooks, and linking to that external entry is the correct option --Outlyer (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Any progress on this? IMHO the whole "Quick Reference" part can go, maybe keep the "Mdmpd" section, if relevant. The "Known problems" section looks like more How-To material to me... RealLink (talk) 10:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)