Re: Spare disk could not sleep / standby

2005-03-09 Thread Tobias Hofmann
On 08.03.2005 14:13, Gordon Henderson wrote: On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Tobias Hofmann wrote: [...] I had found postings on the net claiming that doing so without unmounting the fs on the raid, this would lead to bad things happening - but your report seems to prove them wrong... I've been using

now on to tuning....

2005-03-09 Thread peter.greis
Greetings All, I have been lurking for a while I recently put together a raid 5 system (Asus K8NE SIL 3114/2.6.8.1 kernel) with 4 300GB SATA Seagate drives (a lot smaller than the bulk of what seems to be on this list!). Currently this is used for video and mp3 storage, being Reiser on

Re: now on to tuning....

2005-03-09 Thread Brad Campbell
Gordon Henderson wrote: And do check your disks regularly, although I don't think current version of smartmontools fully supports sata under the scsi subsystem yet... Actually, if you are using a UP machine, the libata-dev tree has patches that make this work. I believe there may be races on SMP

Problem with auto-assembly on Itanium

2005-03-09 Thread Jimmy Hedman
Hi, I try to create a Raid 1 device from two partitions on a Itanium, but i can't get it to auto-assembly the raid when rebooting. Since it uses the GPT partition-scheme i have to use parted. I set the raid-flag on the partitions with set 1 raid on with no luck. I've also tried the

RE: now on to tuning....

2005-03-09 Thread peter.greis
Good point about maxing out the pci bus... - I already use the nForce for mirrored boot drives, so that's not an option. The IDE controllers are empty at the moment (save for a DVD drive); I will give this a thought. Thanks for the feedback, -P -Original Message- From: [EMAIL

Re: [PATCH md 0 of 4] Introduction

2005-03-09 Thread Mike Tran
Hi Neil, On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 21:17, Neil Brown wrote: On Monday March 7, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: NeilBrown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The first two are trivial and should apply equally to 2.6.11 The second two fix bugs that were introduced by the recent

Re: [PATCH md 0 of 4] Introduction

2005-03-09 Thread Peter T. Breuer
Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tuesday March 8, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Have you remodelled the md/raid1 make_request() fn? Somewhat. Write requests are queued, and raid1d submits them when it is happy that all bitmap updates have been done. OK - so a slight modification of the

Re: Spare disk could not sleep / standby [probably dangerous PATCH]

2005-03-09 Thread Peter Evertz
This patch removes my problem. I hope it doesn't have influence on the stability of the system. It is simple: The Update routine skips normaly only faulty disks. Now it skips all disk that are not part of the working array ( raid_disk == -1 ) I made some testing, but surely not all, so : DON'T

Re: Spare disk could not sleep / standby [probably dangerous PATCH]

2005-03-09 Thread Mike Tran
Hi Peter, After applying this patch, have you tried stop and restart the MD array? I believe the spares will be kicked out in analyze_sbs() function (see the second ITERATE_RDEV) -- Regards, Mike T. On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 09:53, Peter Evertz wrote: This patch removes my problem. I hope it

Re: Problem with auto-assembly on Itanium

2005-03-09 Thread Luca Berra
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 11:28:48AM +0100, Jimmy Hedman wrote: Is there any way i can make this work? Could it be doable with mdadm in a initrd? mdassembled was devise for this purpose. create an /etc/mdadm.conf with echo DEVICE partitions /etc/mdadm.conf /sbin/mdadm -D -b /dev/md0 | grep '^ARRAY'

Re: Spare disk could not sleep / standby [probably dangerous PATCH]

2005-03-09 Thread Mike Tran
I tried the patch and immediately found problems. On creation of raid1 array, only the spare has md superblock, the raid disks has no superblock. For instance: mdadm -C /dev/md0 -l 1 -n 2 /dev/hdd1 /dev/hdd2 -x 1 /dev/hdd3 [wait for resync to finish if you want to...] mdadm --stop /dev/md0

Re: Spare disk could not sleep / standby [probably dangerous PATCH]

2005-03-09 Thread Peter Evertz
Mike Tran writes: I tried the patch and immediately found problems. On creation of raid1 array, only the spare has md superblock, the raid disks has no superblock. For instance: mdadm -C /dev/md0 -l 1 -n 2 /dev/hdd1 /dev/hdd2 -x 1 /dev/hdd3 [wait for resync to finish if you want to...] mdadm

mdadm --dangerous-no-resync equivalent

2005-03-09 Thread flame
Hi, I have an installer (http://sourceforge.net/projects/terraformix/) that creates Raid 1 arrays, previously the arrays were created with mkraid using the --dangerous-no-resync option. I am now required to build the arrays with mdadm and have the following questions ; 1) Is there an equivalent

Add a spare to raid5 array?

2005-03-09 Thread John McMonagle
Can a spare be added to an existing raid 5 array? I do not see any way to do it. John - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: mdadm --dangerous-no-resync equivalent

2005-03-09 Thread Neil Brown
On Thursday March 10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I have an installer (http://sourceforge.net/projects/terraformix/) that creates Raid 1 arrays, previously the arrays were created with mkraid using the --dangerous-no-resync option. I am now required to build the arrays with mdadm and have

Re: mdadm --dangerous-no-resync equivalent

2005-03-09 Thread Daniel Pittman
On 10 Mar 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I have an installer (http://sourceforge.net/projects/terraformix/) that creates Raid 1 arrays, previously the arrays were created with mkraid using the --dangerous-no-resync option. I am now required to build the arrays with mdadm and have the

[PATCH 1/2] md bitmap bug fixes

2005-03-09 Thread Paul Clements
Neil, here are a couple of patches -- this one for the kernel, the next for mdadm. They fix a few issues that I found while testing the new bitmap intent logging code. Briefly, the issues were: kernel: added call to bitmap_daemon_work() from raid1d so that the bitmap would actually get cleared

[PATCH 2/2] md bitmap bug fixes

2005-03-09 Thread Paul Clements
Here's the mdadm patch... Paul Clements wrote: Neil, here are a couple of patches -- this one for the kernel, the next for mdadm. They fix a few issues that I found while testing the new bitmap intent logging code. Briefly, the issues were: kernel: added call to bitmap_daemon_work() from raid1d