Yes, and when I boot with the original 2.2.5 kernel that I made it works
fine.  Also, when I boot with the new kernel and do not include md0 or md1
in the fstab and then manually mount them it works just fine.

Sean

On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, Chen-Yuan Wu wrote:

> check do you have the device /dev/md0.....
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Friday, July 30, 1999 11:43 AM
> Subject: strange RAID problem - RAID doesn't work at boot
> 
> 
> >
> >Ok, I am setting up a RAID box, a PII-350 with an ASUS P2B-S mobo (adaptec
> >7000 chip).  I found some document on the web that explained how to set up
> >software RAID correctly (I think it was a HOWTO, but it seems to have gone
> >missing, I cant find it anywhere).  
> >
> >I got it working with kernel 2.2.5 (I'm using RAID-0).  I have two RAID
> >devices, md0 and md1. /home is on md0 and /usr is on md1.  However, I was
> >having a problem.  When I wrote stuff to the disk and then compared it to
> >the source (a cd) they differed slightly.  That state of affairs not being
> >acceptable I decided to try a newer kernel (upon the suggestion that the
> >older scsi drivers might be faulty).  So I downloaded 2.2.10 and compiled
> >and installed it as I thought was correct (I compiled in md support and
> >RAID-0 mode as well as generic scsi support - for my HP CD-writer and the
> >AIC-7000 support for my scsi card).   
> >
> >Now the machine will not boot at all if I have /dev/md0 or /dev/md1
> >anywhere in my fstab.  It fails when checking the filesystems on md0 and
> >md1, saying "short read opening /dev/md0" (same for md1).  I am having a
> >really hard time understanding what is going wrong here.  I would be most
> >grateful for any suggestions that people might have (this machine is due
> >very shortly, I need to get it finished so I can deploy it) and also, if
> >anyone knows a good document that explains how to do software RAID, step
> >by step, I would be grateful for that.
> >
> >Thank you,
> >Sean Harper
> >
> >
> 

Reply via email to