On 18 Jul 2006, Neil Brown moaned:
The superblock locations for sda and sda1 can only be 'one and the
same' if sda1 is at an offset in sda which is a multiple of 64K, and
if sda1 ends near the end of sda. This certainly can happen, but it
is by no means certain.
For this reason, version-1
On Monday July 10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Karl Voit wrote:
[snip]
Well this is because of the false(?) superblocks of sda-sdd in comparison to
sda1 to sdd1.
I don't understand this. Do you have more than a single partion on sda?
Is sda1 occupying the entire disk? since the superblock
Molle Bestefich molle.bestefich at gmail.com writes:
My best guess is that it's OK and you won't loose data if you run
--zero-superblock on /dev/sd[abcd] and then create an array on
/dev/sd[abcd]1, but I do find it odd that it suddenly can't find
superblocks on /dev/sd[abcd]1.
OK, I tried
Molle Bestefich molle.bestefich at gmail.com writes:
Karl Voit wrote:
if (super == NULL) {
fprintf(stderr, Name : No suitable drives found for %s\n, mddev);
[...]
Well I guess, the message will be shown, if the superblock is not found.
Yes. No clue why, my buest guess is that
Karl Voit wrote:
if (super == NULL) {
fprintf(stderr, Name : No suitable drives found for %s\n, mddev);
[...]
Well I guess, the message will be shown, if the superblock is not found.
Yes. No clue why, my buest guess is that you've already zeroed the superblock.
What does madm --query /
Molle Bestefich molle.bestefich at gmail.com writes:
From the paste bin:
443: root at ned ~ # mdadm --examine /dev/sd[abcd]
Shows that all 4 devices are ACTIVE SYNC
Please note that there is no 1 behind sda up to sdd!
Then:
568: root at ned ~ # mdadm --examine /dev/sd[abcd]1
Karl Voit wrote:
[snip]
Well this is because of the false(?) superblocks of sda-sdd in comparison to
sda1 to sdd1.
I don't understand this. Do you have more than a single partion on sda?
Is sda1 occupying the entire disk? since the superblock is the /last/
128Kb (I'm assuming 128*1024 bytes)
Molle Bestefich molle.bestefich at gmail.com writes:
You should probably upgrade at some point, there's always a better
chance that devels will look at your problem if you're running the
version that they're sitting with..
OK, I upgraded my kernel and mdadm:
uname -a:
Linux ned 2.6.13-grml
Henrik Holst henrik.holst at idgmail.se writes:
Karl Voit wrote:
[snip]
Well this is because of the false(?) superblocks of sda-sdd in comparison
to
sda1 to sdd1.
I don't understand this.
Me neither *g*
This is the hint of a friend of mine, who is lot more experienced with
sw-raids.
Henrik Holst henrik.holst at idgmail.se writes:
I don't understand this. Do you have more than a single partion on sda?
Is sda1 occupying the entire disk? since the superblock is the /last/
128Kb (I'm assuming 128*1024 bytes) the superblocks should be one and
the same.
I should have
Karl Voit wrote:
443: root at ned ~ # mdadm --examine /dev/sd[abcd]
Shows that all 4 devices are ACTIVE SYNC
Please note that there is no 1 behind sda up to sdd!
Yes, you're right.
Seems you've created an array/superblocks on both sd[abcd] (line 443
onwards), and on sd[abcd]1 (line
Henrik Holst wrote:
Is sda1 occupying the entire disk? since the superblock is the /last/
128Kb (I'm assuming 128*1024 bytes) the superblocks should be one and
the same.
Ack, never considered that.
Ugly!!!
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in
the body of a
Karl Voit wrote:
OK, I upgraded my kernel and mdadm:
uname -a:
Linux ned 2.6.13-grml #1 Tue Oct 4 18:24:46 CEST 2005 i686 GNU/Linux
That release is 10 months old.
Newest release is 2.6.17.
You can see changes to MD since 2.6.13 here:
Molle Bestefich molle.bestefich at gmail.com writes:
Karl Voit wrote:
OK, I upgraded my kernel and mdadm:
uname -a:
Linux ned 2.6.13-grml #1 Tue Oct 4 18:24:46 CEST 2005 i686 GNU/Linux
That release is 10 months old.
Newest release is 2.6.17.
Sorry, my fault. dpkg -i kernel does not
Molle Bestefich molle.bestefich at gmail.com writes:
Karl Voit wrote:
Before that, I'd like to check again now with
the latest kernel and the latest mdadm:
# mdadm --assemble /dev/md0 /dev/sda1 /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdc1 /dev/sdd1
mdadm: No suitable drives found for /dev/md0
[ ... snip:
Hi!
I created a sw-raid md0 and a LVM above with four 250GB Samsung SATA
disks a couple of months ago. I am not an raid expert but I thought I
could handle it with a little help of my friends from grml: Andreas
jimmy Gredler and Michael mika Prokop.
,
| md0 future mds (PV:s on
Karl Voit wrote:
I published the whole story (as much as I could log during my reboots
and so on) on the web:
http://paste.debian.net/8779
From the paste bin:
443: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ # mdadm --examine /dev/sd[abcd]
Shows that all 4 devices are ACTIVE SYNC
Next
17 matches
Mail list logo
