Hello,
It seems that mdadm/md do not perform proper sanity checks before adding a
component to a degraded array. If the size of the new component is just right,
the superblock information will overlap with the data area. This will happen
without any error indications in the syslog or
Neil Brown wrote:
On Monday January 28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
It seems that mdadm/md do not perform proper sanity checks before adding a
component to a degraded array. If the size of the new component is just right,
the superblock information will overlap with the data area. This
On Monday January 28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
It seems that mdadm/md do not perform proper sanity checks before adding a
component to a degraded array. If the size of the new component is just
right,
the superblock information will overlap with the data area. This will happen
I've been trying to bring up a RAID10 device, and I'm having some
difficulty with automatically-created device names.
mdadm version 2.5.6, Debian Etch.
With metadata=1.2 in my config file,
mdadm --create /dev/md/all --auto=p7 -n 4 --level=10 /dev/sd*2
This does seem to create a RAID array. I
This makes 1.0 the default sb type for new arrays.
Signed-off-by: Jan Engelhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Create.c |6 --
super0.c |4 +---
super1.c |2 +-
3 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
Index: mdadm-2.6.4/Create.c
Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote:
On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 07:13:30AM +1100, Neil Brown wrote:
On Sunday January 27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi
I have tried to make a striping raid out of my new 4 x 1 TB
SATA-2 disks. I tried raid10,f2 in several ways:
1: md0 = raid10,f2 of sda1+sdb1, md1=
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
This makes 1.0 the default sb type for new arrays.
IIRC there was a discussion a while back on renaming mdadm options (google Time
to deprecate old RAID formats?) and the superblocks to emphasise the location
and data structure. Would it be good to introduce the new
Peter Rabbitson wrote:
David Greaves wrote:
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
This makes 1.0 the default sb type for new arrays.
IIRC there was a discussion a while back on renaming mdadm options
(google Time
to deprecate old RAID formats?) and the superblocks to emphasise the
location
and data
David Greaves wrote:
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
This makes 1.0 the default sb type for new arrays.
IIRC there was a discussion a while back on renaming mdadm options (google Time
to deprecate old RAID formats?) and the superblocks to emphasise the location
and data structure. Would it be good to
On Jan 28 2008 18:19, David Greaves wrote:
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
This makes 1.0 the default sb type for new arrays.
IIRC there was a discussion a while back on renaming mdadm options
(google Time to deprecate old RAID formats?) and the superblocks
to emphasise the location and data structure.
On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 01:32:48PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Neil Brown wrote:
On Sunday January 27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi
I have tried to make a striping raid out of my new 4 x 1 TB
SATA-2 disks. I tried raid10,f2 in several ways:
1: md0 = raid10,f2 of sda1+sdb1, md1=
Subtitle: Patch to mainline yet?
Hi
I don't see evidence of Neil's patch in 2.6.24, so I applied it by hand
on my server.
Was that the correct thing to do, or did this issue get fixed in a
different way that I wouldn't have spotted? I had a look at the git logs
but it was not obvious -
QUESTIONS:
1. If I create a device called /dev/md/all, should I expect that mdadm
will create a device called /dev/md/127, and that mdadm --detail --scan
will report it as /dev/md127 or something similar?
That's still happening. However:
2. How can I completely eradicate all traces of
Hello linux-raid.
i have DEBIAN.
raid01:/# mdadm -V
mdadm - v2.6.4 - 19th October 2007
raid01:/# mdadm -D /dev/md1
/dev/md1:
Version : 00.91.03
Creation Time : Tue Nov 13 18:42:36 2007
Raid Level : raid5
Array Size : 1465159488 (1397.29 GiB 1500.32 GB)
Used Dev Size :
On Monday January 28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
It seems that mdadm/md do not perform proper sanity checks before adding a
component to a degraded array. If the size of the new component is just
right,
the superblock information will overlap with the data area. This will happen
Hello linux-raid.
i have DEBIAN.
raid01:/# mdadm -V
mdadm - v2.6.4 - 19th October 2007
raid01:/# mdadm -D /dev/md1
/dev/md1:
Version : 00.91.03
Creation Time : Tue Nov 13 18:42:36 2007
Raid Level : raid5
Array Size : 1465159488 (1397.29 GiB 1500.32 GB)
Used Dev Size :
David Greaves wrote:
Peter Rabbitson wrote:
David Greaves wrote:
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
This makes 1.0 the default sb type for new arrays.
IIRC there was a discussion a while back on renaming mdadm options
(google Time
to deprecate old RAID formats?) and the superblocks to emphasise the
I'm finding a problem that isn't covered by the usual FAQs and online
recipes.
Attempted setup: RAID 10 array with 4 disks.
Because Debian doesn't include RAID10 in its installation disks, I
created a Debian installation on the first partition of sda, in
/dev/sda1. Eventually I'll probably
On Monday January 28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps I'm mistaken but I though it was possible to do boot from
/dev/md/all1.
It is my understanding that grub cannot boot from RAID.
You can boot from raid1 by the expedient of booting from one of the
halves.
A common approach is to make a
On Tuesday 29 January 2008 05:15, Bill Davidsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You may have missed the much higher part of the previous paragraph.
And given the reliability of modern drives, unless you have a LOT of
them you may be looking at years of degraded performance to save a few
hours of slow
20 matches
Mail list logo
