Daniel L. Miller wrote:
Doug Ledford wrote:
Nah. Even if we had concluded that udev was to blame here, I'm not
entirely certain that we hadn't left Daniel with the impression that we
suspected it versus blamed it, so reiterating it doesn't hurt. And I'm
sure no one has given him a fix for the
Daniel L. Miller wrote:
Doug Ledford wrote:
Nah. Even if we had concluded that udev was to blame here, I'm not
entirely certain that we hadn't left Daniel with the impression that we
suspected it versus blamed it, so reiterating it doesn't hurt. And I'm
sure no one has given him a fix for the
On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 08:21:34PM -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Because you didn't stripe align the partition, your bad.
Align to /what/ stripe? Hardware (CHS is fiction), software (of the RAID
the real stripe (track) size of the storage, you must read the manual
and/or bug technical support
On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 10:59:01PM -0700, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
Doug Ledford wrote:
Anyway, I happen to *like* the idea of using full disk devices, but the
reality is that the md subsystem doesn't have exclusive ownership of the
disks at all times, and without that it really needs to stake a
Luca Berra wrote:
On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 08:21:34PM -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Because you didn't stripe align the partition, your bad.
Align to /what/ stripe? Hardware (CHS is fiction), software (of the RAID
the real stripe (track) size of the storage, you must read the manual
and/or
On Sun, 2007-10-28 at 20:21 -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Doug Ledford wrote:
On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 11:15 +0200, Luca Berra wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 02:40:06AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
The partition table is the single, (mostly) universally recognized
arbiter of what
On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 09:22 -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
consider a storage with 64 spt, an io size of 4k and partition starting
at sector 63.
first io request will require two ios from the storage (1 for sector 63,
and one for sectors 64 to 70)
the next 7 io
On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 09:18 +0100, Luca Berra wrote:
On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 10:59:01PM -0700, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
Doug Ledford wrote:
Anyway, I happen to *like* the idea of using full disk devices, but the
reality is that the md subsystem doesn't have exclusive ownership of the
disks at
On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 08:41:39AM +0100, Luca Berra wrote:
consider a storage with 64 spt, an io size of 4k and partition starting
at sector 63.
first io request will require two ios from the storage (1 for sector 63,
and one for sectors 64 to 70)
the next 7 io
On Sun, 2007-10-28 at 22:59 -0700, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
Doug Ledford wrote:
Anyway, I happen to *like* the idea of using full disk devices, but the
reality is that the md subsystem doesn't have exclusive ownership of the
disks at all times, and without that it really needs to stake a
Daniel L. Miller wrote:
Nothing in the documentation (that I read - granted I don't always read
everything) stated that partitioning prior to md creation was necessary
- in fact references were provided on how to use complete disks. Is
there an official position on, To Partition, or Not To
On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 11:47:19AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 09:18 +0100, Luca Berra wrote:
On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 10:59:01PM -0700, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
Doug Ledford wrote:
Anyway, I happen to *like* the idea of using full disk devices, but the
reality is that the md
On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 22:29 +0100, Luca Berra wrote:
At which point he found that
the udev scripts in ubuntu are being stupid, and from the looks of it
are the cause of the problem. So, I've considered the initial issue
root caused for a bit now.
It seems i made an idiot of myself by missing
Doug Ledford wrote:
Nah. Even if we had concluded that udev was to blame here, I'm not
entirely certain that we hadn't left Daniel with the impression that we
suspected it versus blamed it, so reiterating it doesn't hurt. And I'm
sure no one has given him a fix for the problem (although Neil
On Sat, Oct 27, 2007 at 04:47:30PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 09:50 +0200, Luca Berra wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 03:26:33PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 11:15 +0200, Luca Berra wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 02:40:06AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
On Sun, 2007-10-28 at 14:37 +0100, Luca Berra wrote:
On Sat, Oct 27, 2007 at 04:47:30PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
Most of the time it does. But those times where it can fail, the
failure is due to not taking the precautions necessary to prevent it:
aka labeling disk usage via some sort of
Doug Ledford wrote:
On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 11:15 +0200, Luca Berra wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 02:40:06AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
The partition table is the single, (mostly) universally recognized
arbiter of what possible data might be on the disk. Having a partition
table may
Doug Ledford wrote:
Anyway, I happen to *like* the idea of using full disk devices, but the
reality is that the md subsystem doesn't have exclusive ownership of the
disks at all times, and without that it really needs to stake a claim on
the space instead of leaving things to chance IMO.
I've
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 03:26:33PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 11:15 +0200, Luca Berra wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 02:40:06AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
The partition table is the single, (mostly) universally recognized
arbiter of what possible data might be on the disk.
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 06:53:40PM +0200, Gabor Gombas wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 11:15:13AM +0200, Luca Berra wrote:
on a pc maybe, but that is 20 years old design.
partition table design is limited because it is still based on C/H/S,
which do not exist anymore.
The MS-DOS format is not
On Sat, Oct 27, 2007 at 09:50:55AM +0200, Luca Berra wrote:
Because you didn't stripe align the partition, your bad.
:)
by default fdisk misalignes partition tables
and aligning them is more complex than just doing without.
Why use fdisk then? Use parted instead. It's not the kernel's fault
On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 09:50 +0200, Luca Berra wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 03:26:33PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 11:15 +0200, Luca Berra wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 02:40:06AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
The partition table is the single, (mostly) universally
On Thursday October 25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Neil Brown wrote:
It might be worth finding out where mdadm is being run in the init
scripts and add a -v flag, and redirecting stdout/stderr to some log
file.
e.g.
mdadm -As -v /var/log/mdadm-$$ 21
And see if that leaves
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 02:40:06AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
partition table (something that the Fedora/RHEL installers do to all
disks without partition tables...well, the installer tells you there's
no partition table and asks if you want to initialize it, but if someone
is in a hurry and
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 11:15:13AM +0200, Luca Berra wrote:
on a pc maybe, but that is 20 years old design.
partition table design is limited because it is still based on C/H/S,
which do not exist anymore.
The MS-DOS format is not the only possible partition table layout. Other
formats such
On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 11:15 +0200, Luca Berra wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 02:40:06AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
The partition table is the single, (mostly) universally recognized
arbiter of what possible data might be on the disk. Having a partition
table may not make mdadm recognize the
On Wednesday October 24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Current mdadm.conf:
DEVICE partitions
ARRAY /dev/.static/dev/md0 level=raid10 num-devices=4
UUID=9d94b17b:f5fac31a:577c252b:0d4c4b2a auto=part
still have the problem where on boot one drive is not part of the
array. Is there a log file I
On Wed, 2007-10-24 at 22:43 -0700, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Daniel L. Miller wrote:
Current mdadm.conf:
DEVICE partitions
ARRAY /dev/.static/dev/md0 level=raid10 num-devices=4
UUID=9d94b17b:f5fac31a:577c252b:0d4c4b2a auto=part
still have the problem where on
On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 16:12 +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
md: md0 stopped.
md: md0 stopped.
md: bindsdc
md: bindsdd
md: bindsdb
md: md0: raid array is not clean -- starting background reconstruction
raid10: raid set md0 active with 3 out of 4 devices
md: couldn't update array info. -22
Neil Brown wrote:
It might be worth finding out where mdadm is being run in the init
scripts and add a -v flag, and redirecting stdout/stderr to some log
file.
e.g.
mdadm -As -v /var/log/mdadm-$$ 21
And see if that leaves something useful in the log file.
I haven't rebooted yet, but
Neil Brown wrote:
On Wednesday October 24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Current mdadm.conf:
DEVICE partitions
ARRAY /dev/.static/dev/md0 level=raid10 num-devices=4
UUID=9d94b17b:f5fac31a:577c252b:0d4c4b2a auto=part
still have the problem where on boot one drive is not part of the
array. Is
Bill Davidsen wrote:
You don't think the unknown partition table on sdd is related?
Because I read that as a sure indication that the system isn't
considering the drive as one without a partition table, and therefore
isn't looking for the superblock on the whole device. And as Doug
pointed
On Thursday October 25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Neil Brown wrote:
BTW, I don't think your problem has anything to do with the fact that
you are using whole partitions.
You don't think the unknown partition table on sdd is related? Because
I read that as a sure indication that the
Daniel L. Miller wrote:
Richard Scobie wrote:
Daniel L. Miller wrote:
And you didn't ask, but my mdadm.conf:
DEVICE partitions
ARRAY /dev/.static/dev/md0 level=raid10 num-devices=4
UUID=9d94b17b:f5fac31a:577c252b:0d4c4b2a
Try adding
auto=part
at the end of you mdadm.conf ARRAY line.
On Wed, 2007-10-24 at 07:22 -0700, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
Daniel L. Miller wrote:
Richard Scobie wrote:
Daniel L. Miller wrote:
And you didn't ask, but my mdadm.conf:
DEVICE partitions
ARRAY /dev/.static/dev/md0 level=raid10 num-devices=4
UUID=9d94b17b:f5fac31a:577c252b:0d4c4b2a
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Daniel L. Miller wrote:
Current mdadm.conf:
DEVICE partitions
ARRAY /dev/.static/dev/md0 level=raid10 num-devices=4
UUID=9d94b17b:f5fac31a:577c252b:0d4c4b2a auto=part
still have the problem where on boot one drive is not part of the
array. Is there a log file I can
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Daniel L. Miller wrote:
Hi!
I have a four-disk Raid-10 array that I created and mount with
mdadm. It seems like every re-boot, either the array is not
recognized altogether, or one of the disks is not added. Manually
adding using mdadm works.
What superblock version
Daniel L. Miller wrote:
And you didn't ask, but my mdadm.conf:
DEVICE partitions
ARRAY /dev/.static/dev/md0 level=raid10 num-devices=4
UUID=9d94b17b:f5fac31a:577c252b:0d4c4b2a
Hi Daniel,
Try adding
auto=part
at the end of you mdadm.conf ARRAY line.
Regards,
Richard
-
To unsubscribe
Richard Scobie wrote:
Daniel L. Miller wrote:
And you didn't ask, but my mdadm.conf:
DEVICE partitions
ARRAY /dev/.static/dev/md0 level=raid10 num-devices=4
UUID=9d94b17b:f5fac31a:577c252b:0d4c4b2a
Try adding
auto=part
at the end of you mdadm.conf ARRAY line.
Thanks - will see what
Daniel L. Miller wrote:
Hi!
I have a four-disk Raid-10 array that I created and mount with mdadm.
It seems like every re-boot, either the array is not recognized
altogether, or one of the disks is not added. Manually adding using
mdadm works.
What superblock version and partition type
40 matches
Mail list logo
