On 18.07.2006 15:46:53, Neil Brown wrote:
On Monday July 17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
/dev/md/0 on /boot type ext2 (rw,nogrpid)
/dev/md/1 on / type reiserfs (rw)
/dev/md/2 on /var type reiserfs (rw)
/dev/md/3 on /opt type reiserfs (rw)
/dev/md/4 on /usr type reiserfs (rw)
/dev/md/5
On Tuesday July 18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jul 16 16:59:37 ceres kernel: ide: failed opcode was: unknown
Jul 16 16:59:37 ceres kernel: hdb: drive not ready for command
Jul 16 16:59:37 ceres kernel: ide0: reset: success
Jul 16 16:59:37 ceres kernel: hdb: status error: status=0x00 { }
Jul 16
Hi!
Another pseudo-problem :) I've just set up a RAID5 array by creating a
three-disk one from two disks, and later adding the third. Everything
seems normal, but the mdadm (2.5.2) -X output:
Filename : /dev/hda3
Magic : 6d746962
Version : 4
UUID :
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 01:32:38AM +0800, Federico Sevilla III wrote:
On Sat, Jul 15, 2006 at 12:48:56PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
I am currently gathering information to write an article about journal
filesystems with emphasis on write barrier functionality, how it
works, why
What are you expecting fdisk to tell you? fdisk lists partitions and
I suspect you didn't have any partitions on /dev/md0
More likely you want something like
fsck -n -f /dev/md0
and see which one produces the least noise.
Maybe a simple file -s /dev/md0 could do the trick, and would only
Francois Barre wrote:
What are you expecting fdisk to tell you? fdisk lists partitions and
I suspect you didn't have any partitions on /dev/md0
More likely you want something like
fsck -n -f /dev/md0
and see which one produces the least noise.
Maybe a simple file -s /dev/md0 could do the
More likely to produce an output whenever the 1st disk in the array is in the
right place as it will
just look at the 1st couple of sectors for the superblock.
I'd go with the fsck idea as it will try to inspect the rest of the filesystem
also.
Obviously that's true, but it's still a good
with lvm you have to stop lvm before you can stop the arrays... i wouldn't
be surprised if evms has the same issue...
AFAIK there's no counterpart to evms_activate.
Besides, I'm no longer using EVMS, I just included it in my testing
since this issue bit me there first.
Thanks,
Christian
-
To
Hi,
I'm looking for advice on tuning the read-ahead cache for an md device...
for example, should I merely set the read-ahead for the md device:
blockdev --setra ### /dev/md2
or should I start touching the individual raid member devices:
blockdev --setra ### /dev/sdc1
blockdev --setra ###
Hi,
So if I were to want to stop the resync process on a very large array
(1.4T), since it is in the middle of the day and makes work slower...
How can I tell which drive is the one that is being used to check all
the rest of the data? Or in other words, how can I stop the resync
process and let
I think I'm leaning towards auto-creating names if they look like
standard names (or are listed in mdadm.conf?), but required
auto=whatever to create anything else.
The auto= option has the disadvantage that it is different for
partitionable and regular arrays -- is there no way to detect from
Hi Du,
Did you create a /boot partition? /boot cannot be on LVM (AFAIK), and
can be a regular partition or raid1. HTH.
Paul
Du wrote:
Hi, I was/am trying to install Debian Sarge r2 with 2 Sata HD's working
on Raid 1 via Software and in this newly MD device, I put LVM. All works
fine and
Shai wrote:
Hi,
I rebooted my server today to find out that one of the arrays is being
re-synced (see output below)
.
1. What does the (S) to the right of hdh1[5](S) mean?
2. How do I know, from this output, which disk is the one holding the
most current data and from which all the other
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Neil Brown wrote:
On Thursday July 6, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hello, i just realized that internal bitmaps do not seem to work
anymore.
I cannot imagine why. Nothing you have listed show anything wrong
with md...
Maybe you were expecting
mdadm -X /dev/md100
I assume that your /boot was raid1... I had similar issues with the
Debian installer, trying to install a file server using LVM on top of
RAID. I never did work out the problem; I installed Fedora Core :-/
Sorry I can't be of more help :-(
Paul
Du wrote:
Paul Waldo wrote:
Hi Du,
Did you
Sevrin Robstad wrote:
I created the RAID when I installed Fedora Core 3 some time ago,
didn't do anything special so the chunks should be 64kbyte and
parity should be left-symmetric ?
I have no idea what's default on FC3, sorry.
Any Idea ?
I missed that you were trying to fdisk -l
Janos Farkas wrote:
# for i in hdb3 hdd3 hda3 ; mdadm -X /dev/$i|grep map
Bitmap : 285923 bits (chunks), 0 dirty (0.0%)
Bitmap : 285923 bits (chunks), 0 dirty (0.0%)
Bitmap : 285923 bits (chunks), 65536 dirty (22.9%)
This indicates that the _on-disk_ bits are
Hi
After a powercut I'm trying to mount an array and failing :(
teak:~# mdadm --assemble /dev/media --auto=p /dev/sd[bcdef]1
mdadm: /dev/media has been started with 5 drives.
Good
However:
teak:~# mount /media
mount: /dev/media1 is not a valid block device
teak:~# dd if=/dev/media1
Hi!
On 2006-07-18 at 11:30:42, Paul Clements wrote:
Personalities : [raid1] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4]
md0 : active raid5 hdd3[2] hdb3[0] hda3[1]
585569024 blocks level 5, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [3/3] [UUU]
bitmap: 0/140 pages [0KB], 1024KB chunk
This indicates that the _in-memory_
On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 06:58:56PM +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
On Tuesday July 18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 01:32:38AM +0800, Federico Sevilla III wrote:
On Sat, Jul 15, 2006 at 12:48:56PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
I am currently gathering information to write
David Greaves wrote:
Hi
After a powercut I'm trying to mount an array and failing :(
A reboot after tidying up /dev/ fixed it.
The first time through I'd forgotten to update the boot scripts and they
were assembling the wrong UUID. That was fine; I realised this and ran
the manual assemble:
Neil Brown wrote:
I have written some posts about this before... My 6 disk RAID 5 broke
down because of hardware failure. When I tried to get it up'n'running
again
I did a --create without any missing disk, which made it rebuild. I have
also lost all information about how the old RAID was set
On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 09:34:35AM -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Boy, I didn't say that well... what I meant to suggest is that when -E
or -X are applied to the array as a whole, would it not be useful to
itterate them over all of the components rather than than looking for
non-existant data in
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
Hi,
Another question on this matter please:
If there is a raid5 with 4 disks and 1 missing, and we add that disk,
while its doing the resync of that disk, how do we know which disk it
is (if we forgot what one we added)?
Thanks,
Shai
On 7/18/06, Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday
25 matches
Mail list logo
