bug#38086: RAID installation script with ‘mdadm’ no longer works
Ludovic Courtès 写道：
As you can see, it’s attempting to make a RAID1 device out of
two
partitions (not two disks), which makes no sense in the real
world, but
is easier to handle here. So I wonder if this is what’s causing
it to
hang…
It's just waiting for input:
$ # dd & losetup magic, where loop0 is 20% larger than loop1
$ sudo mdadm --create /dev/md0 --verbose --level=mirror
--raid-devices=2 /dev/loop{0,1}
mdadm: Note: this array has metadata at the start and
may not be suitable as a boot device. If you plan to
store '/boot' on this device please ensure that
your boot-loader understands md/v1.x metadata, or use
--metadata=0.90
mdadm: size set to 101376K
mdadm: largest drive (/dev/loop1) exceeds size (101376K) by more
than 1%
Continue creating array?
Adding --force does not avoid this.
I recommend tweaking the partition table to make both members
equal, but a ‘yes|’ also works if you're in a hurry ;-)
Kind regards,
T G-R
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
bug#38086: RAID installation script with ‘mdadm’ no longer works
Hi!
Vagrant Cascadian skribis:
> So, this might be sort of a tangent, but I'm wondering why you're
> testing raid0 (striping, for performance+capacity at risk of data loss)
> instead of raid1 (mirroring, for redundancy, fast reads, slow writes,
> half capacity of storage), or another raid level with more disks (raid5,
> raid6, raid10). raid1 would be the simplest to switch the code to, since
> it uses only two disks.
Good point! I guess it would make sense to test RAID1, indeed.
I gave it a shot with the patch below. Problem is that installation
seemingly hangs here:
--8<---cut here---start->8---
+ parted --script /dev/vdb mklabel gpt mkpart primary ext2 1M 3M mkpart primary
ext2 3M 1.4G mkpart primary ext2 1.4G 2.8G set 1 boot on set 1 bios_grub on
+ mdadm --create /dev/md0 --verbose --level=mirror --raid-devices=2 /dev/vdb2
/dev/vdb3
mdadm: Note: this array has metadata at the start and
may not be suitable as a boot device. If you plan to
store '/boot' on this device please ensure that
your boot-loader understands md/v1.x metadata, or use
--metadata=0.90
mdadm: size set to 1361920K
mdadm: largest drive (/dev/vdb3) exceeds size (1361920K) by more than 1%
--8<---cut here---end--->8---
As you can see, it’s attempting to make a RAID1 device out of two
partitions (not two disks), which makes no sense in the real world, but
is easier to handle here. So I wonder if this is what’s causing it to
hang…
Thoughts?
Ludo’.
diff --git a/gnu/tests/install.scm b/gnu/tests/install.scm
index 8842d48df8..12e6eb26df 100644
--- a/gnu/tests/install.scm
+++ b/gnu/tests/install.scm
@@ -546,8 +546,8 @@ where /gnu lives on a separate partition.")
(target "/dev/vdb")))
(kernel-arguments '("console=ttyS0"))
-;; Add a kernel module for RAID-0 (aka. "stripe").
-(initrd-modules (cons "raid0" %base-initrd-modules))
+;; Add a kernel module for RAID-1 (aka. "mirror").
+(initrd-modules (cons "raid1" %base-initrd-modules))
(mapped-devices (list (mapped-device
(source (list "/dev/vda2" "/dev/vda3"))
@@ -578,11 +578,11 @@ guix --version
export GUIX_BUILD_OPTIONS=--no-grafts
parted --script /dev/vdb mklabel gpt \\
mkpart primary ext2 1M 3M \\
- mkpart primary ext2 3M 600M \\
- mkpart primary ext2 600M 1200M \\
+ mkpart primary ext2 3M 1.4G \\
+ mkpart primary ext2 1.4G 2.8G \\
set 1 boot on \\
set 1 bios_grub on
-mdadm --create /dev/md0 --verbose --level=stripe --raid-devices=2 \\
+mdadm --create /dev/md0 --verbose --level=mirror --raid-devices=2 \\
/dev/vdb2 /dev/vdb3
mkfs.ext4 -L root-fs /dev/md0
mount /dev/md0 /mnt
@@ -605,7 +605,7 @@ by 'mdadm'.")
%raid-root-os-source
#:script
%raid-root-installation-script
- #:target-size (* 1300 MiB)))
+ #:target-size (* 2800 MiB)))
(command (qemu-command/writable-image image)))
(run-basic-test %raid-root-os
`(,@command) "raid-root-os")
bug#39172: SElinux guix-daemon.cil file
Hi All, I appologize for the formatting. I use tbird and I can't find a way to do plain-text mode. I'm trying to get guix-1.0.1 running on Fedora-30 with its default SElinux set up. I found (hint from https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2019-05/msg00109.html) that the guix-daemon.cil file seems to be missing a few items. Without this patch # restorecon -R /gnu/store fails. --- guix-daemon.cil.orig 2020-01-18 07:08:12.905986299 -0800 +++ guix-daemon.cil 2020-01-18 07:09:49.765737261 -0800 @@ -34,14 +34,19 @@ (roletype object_r guix_daemon_t) (type guix_daemon_conf_t) (roletype object_r guix_daemon_conf_t) + (typeattributeset file_type guix_daemon_conf_t) (type guix_daemon_exec_t) (roletype object_r guix_daemon_exec_t) + (typeattributeset file_type guix_daemon_exec_t) (type guix_daemon_socket_t) (roletype object_r guix_daemon_socket_t) + (typeattributeset file_type guix_daemon_socket_t) (type guix_store_content_t) (roletype object_r guix_store_content_t) + (typeattributeset file_type guix_store_content_t) (type guix_profiles_t) (roletype object_r guix_profiles_t) + (typeattributeset file_type guix_profiles_t) ;; These types are domains, thereby allowing process rules (typeattributeset domain (guix_daemon_t guix_daemon_exec_t))
bug#38086: RAID installation script with ‘mdadm’ no longer works
Vagrant Cascadian ezt írta (időpont: 2020. jan. 17., Pén 23:42): > On 2019-11-12, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > > Gábor Boskovits skribis: > > > >>> + mdadm --create /dev/md0 --verbose --level=stripe --raid-devices=2 > >>> /dev/vdb2 /dev/vdb3 > >>> mdadm: chunk size defaults to 512K > >>> mdadm: Defaulting to version 1.2 metadata > >>> [ 13.890586] md/raid0:md0: cannot assemble multi-zone RAID0 with > >>> default_layout setting > >>> [ 13.894691] md/raid0: please set raid0.default_layout to 1 or 2 > >>> [ 13.896000] md: pers->run() failed ... > >>> mdadm: RUN_ARRAY failed: Unknown error 524 > >>> [ 13.901603] md: md0 stopped. > >>> --8<---cut here---end--->8--- > >>> > >>> Anyone knows what it takes to “set raid0.default_layout to 1 or 2”? > >>> > >> > >> On kernel 5.3.4 and above the > >> raid0.default_layout=2 kernel boot paramter should be set. We should > >> generate our grub configuration accordingly. > > So, this might be sort of a tangent, but I'm wondering why you're > testing raid0 (striping, for performance+capacity at risk of data loss) > instead of raid1 (mirroring, for redundancy, fast reads, slow writes, > half capacity of storage), or another raid level with more disks (raid5, > raid6, raid10). raid1 would be the simplest to switch the code to, since > it uses only two disks. > > > The issue triggering this bug might be a non-issue on other raid levels > that in my mind might make more sense for rootfs. Or maybe people have > use-casese for rootfs on raid0 that I'm too uncreative to think of? :) > I often see raid 10 as root. I believe it might make sense to test that setup. > > > live well, > vagrant >
