Re: Raid 10 question/problem [ot]
Michael Tokarev wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
[]
RAID-10 is not the same as RAID 0+1.
It is. Yes, there's separate module for raid10, but what it - basically -
does is the same as raid0 module over two raid1 modules will do. It's
just a bit more efficient (less levels, more room for optimisations),
easy to use (you'll have single array instead of at least 3), and a bit
more flexible; at the same way it's less widely tested...
But the end result is basically the same for both ways.
For values of "same" which exclude consideration of the disk layout,
throughput, overhead, system administration, and use of spares. Those
are different. But both methods do write multiple copies of ones and
zeros to storage media.
Neil brown, 08/23/2005:
- A raid10 can consist of an odd number of drives (if you have a
cabinet with, say, 8 slots, you can have 1 hot spare, and 7 drives
in a raid10. You cannot do that with LVM (or raid0) over raid1).
- raid10 has a layout ('far') which theoretically can provide
sequential read throughput that scales by number of drives, rather
than number of raid1 pairs. I say 'theoretically' because I think
there are still issues with the read-balancing code that make this
hard to get in practice (though increasing the read-ahead seems to
help).
After about 40 configurations tested, I can say that write performance
is better as well, for any given stripe cache size up to 4x stripe size.
I was looking at something else, but the numbers happen to be available.
--
Bill Davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 question/problem [ot]
Michael Tokarev wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
[]
RAID-10 is not the same as RAID 0+1.
It is. Yes, there's separate module for raid10, but what it - basically -
does is the same as raid0 module over two raid1 modules will do. It's
just a bit more efficient (less levels, more room for optimisations),
easy to use (you'll have single array instead of at least 3), and a bit
more flexible; at the same way it's less widely tested...
But the end result is basically the same for both ways.
For values of same which exclude consideration of the disk layout,
throughput, overhead, system administration, and use of spares. Those
are different. But both methods do write multiple copies of ones and
zeros to storage media.
Neil brown, 08/23/2005:
- A raid10 can consist of an odd number of drives (if you have a
cabinet with, say, 8 slots, you can have 1 hot spare, and 7 drives
in a raid10. You cannot do that with LVM (or raid0) over raid1).
- raid10 has a layout ('far') which theoretically can provide
sequential read throughput that scales by number of drives, rather
than number of raid1 pairs. I say 'theoretically' because I think
there are still issues with the read-balancing code that make this
hard to get in practice (though increasing the read-ahead seems to
help).
After about 40 configurations tested, I can say that write performance
is better as well, for any given stripe cache size up to 4x stripe size.
I was looking at something else, but the numbers happen to be available.
--
Bill Davidsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked. - from Slashdot
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 question/problem [ot]
On Jan 28 2007 22:44, Michael Tokarev wrote: >>> Mdadm creates those nodes automa[tg]ically - man mdadm, search for --auto. >> >> Note that `mdadm -As` _is_ run on FC6 boot. > >See above -- man mdadm, search for --auto. -A = --assemble, -s = --scan. Oops, thank you. So mdadm -A -s --auto=yes did the right thing, and probably is what was intended. And now for tonight's 1000$ question: why does fedora don't do that, making me edit the mdadm -A -s line in /etc/rc.d/rc.sysvinit? -`J' -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 question/problem [ot]
On Jan 28 2007 22:49, Michael Tokarev wrote: >Bill Davidsen wrote: >[] >> RAID-10 is not the same as RAID 0+1. > >It is. Yes, there's separate module for raid10, but what it - basically - >does is the same as raid0 module over two raid1 modules will do. It's >just a bit more efficient (less levels, more room for optimisations), >easy to use (you'll have single array instead of at least 3), and a bit >more flexible; at the same way it's less widely tested... And most importantly, raid10 allows you to spread the array data over an odd number of devices while still having [at least] 2 copies of each block. Hm, I really wished resizing was implemented for raid0 and raid10 too... ;) -`J' -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 question/problem [ot]
Bill Davidsen wrote: [] > RAID-10 is not the same as RAID 0+1. It is. Yes, there's separate module for raid10, but what it - basically - does is the same as raid0 module over two raid1 modules will do. It's just a bit more efficient (less levels, more room for optimisations), easy to use (you'll have single array instead of at least 3), and a bit more flexible; at the same way it's less widely tested... But the end result is basically the same for both ways. /mjt - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 question/problem [ot]
Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Jan 28 2007 12:05, Michael Tokarev wrote: [] >> Mdadm creates those nodes automa[tg]ically - man mdadm, search for --auto. > > Note that `mdadm -As` _is_ run on FC6 boot. See above -- man mdadm, search for --auto. -A = --assemble, -s = --scan. >> In order for an md array to be started up on boot, it has to be specified >> in /etc/mdadm.conf. With proper DEVICE line in there. That's all. > > That's how it is, and it does not work. Sure. Because of this missing --auto flag. > openSUSE 10.2: > no mdadm.conf _at all_, /etc/init.d/boot.d/boot.md is chkconfig'ed _out_, > _no_ md kernel module is loaded, and I still have all the /dev/md nodes. And no udev. Or, alternatively, *all* md devices are created by some other script or somesuch. There's No Magic (tm). [] > # mdadm -C /dev/md1 -e 1.0 -l 1 -n 2 /dev/sdb2 /dev/sdc2 > mdadm: error opening /dev/md1: No such file or directory > > Showstopper. Nonsense. See above again, man mdadm, search for --auto. [] > You see, I have all the reason to be confused. Yeah, this is quite... confusing. It's all due to the way how mdadm iteracts with the kernel and how udev works - all together. The thing is - in order to assemble an array, proper device node has to be in place. But udev wont create it until array is assembled. Chicken problem. Exactly due to this, the node(s) can be created with mdadm (with --auto option, whicih can be specified in mdadm.conf too), AND/OR with some startup script before invoking mdadm, AND/OR when the system isn't broken by udevd (with ol'good static /dev). >> But in any case, this has exactly nothing to do with kernel. >> It's 100% userspace issues, I'd say distribution-specific issues. ..And each distribution uses its own kludge/workaround/solution for this stuff - which you demonstrated... ;) /mjt - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 question/problem [ot]
Marc Perkel wrote: I'm a little stumped trying to set up raid 10. I set it up and it worked but after a reboot it forgets my raid setup. Created 2 raid 1 arrays in md0 and md1 and that works and survives a reboot. However - I created a raid 0 on /dev/md2 made up of /dev/md0 and /dev/md1 and it worked but it forgets it after I reboot. The device /dev/md2 fails to survive a reboot. Created the /etc/mdadm.conf file but that doesn't seem to have made a difference. What am I missing? Thanks in advance. RAID-10 is not the same as RAID 0+1. There's a linux-raid mailing list, the archives may assist in understanding this. Either use RAID-10 or add md2 to the mdadm.conf to get it started at boot. I suggest using RAID-10. -- Bill Davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 question/problem [ot]
On Jan 28 2007 12:05, Michael Tokarev wrote: >Jan Engelhardt wrote: >> >> That's interesting. I am using Aurora Corona, and all but md0 vanishes. >> (Reason for that is that udev does not create the nodes md1-md31 on >> boot, so mdadm cannot assemble the arrays.) > >This is nonsense. > >Mdadm creates those nodes automa[tg]ically - man mdadm, search for --auto. >Udev has exactly nothing to do with mdX nodes. Note that `mdadm -As` _is_ run on FC6 boot. >In order for an md array to be started up on boot, it has to be specified >in /etc/mdadm.conf. With proper DEVICE line in there. That's all. That's how it is, and it does not work. openSUSE 10.2: no mdadm.conf _at all_, /etc/init.d/boot.d/boot.md is chkconfig'ed _out_, _no_ md kernel module is loaded, and I still have all the /dev/md nodes. FC6 standard install: no mdadm.conf, otherwise regular boot. /dev/md0 exists. Uhuh. FC6 with two raids: # fdisk -l Disk /dev/sdb: 8589 MB, 8589934592 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 1044 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdb1 1 123 987966 fd Linux raid autodetect /dev/sdb2 124 246 987997+ fd Linux raid autodetect /dev/sdb3 247 369 987997+ fd Linux raid autodetect /dev/sdb4 3701044 5421937+ fd Linux raid autodetect Disk /dev/sdc: 8589 MB, 8589934592 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 1044 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdc1 1 123 987966 fd Linux raid autodetect /dev/sdc2 124 246 987997+ fd Linux raid autodetect /dev/sdc3 247 369 987997+ fd Linux raid autodetect /dev/sdc4 3701044 5421937+ fd Linux raid autodetect # mdadm -C /dev/md0 -e 1.0 -l 1 -n 2 /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdc1 mdadm: array /dev/md0 started. # mdadm -C /dev/md1 -e 1.0 -l 1 -n 2 /dev/sdb2 /dev/sdc2 mdadm: error opening /dev/md1: No such file or directory Showstopper. # mknod /dev/md1 b 9 1 # mdadm -C /dev/md1 -e 1.0 -l 1 -n 2 /dev/sdb2 /dev/sdc2 mdadm: array /dev/md1 started. # cat /etc/mdadm.conf cat: /etc/mdadm.conf: No such file or directory # echo "DEVICE /dev/sd[a-z][0-9]" >/etc/mdadm.conf # mdadm --detail --scan >>/etc/mdadm.conf # cat /etc/mdadm.conf DEVICE /dev/sd[a-z][0-9] ARRAY /dev/md0 level=raid1 num-devices=2 name=0 UUID=5ded6a11:3b9072f6:ae46efc7:d1628ea7 ARRAY /dev/md1 level=raid1 num-devices=2 name=1 UUID=2fda5608:d63d8287:761a7a09:68fe743f # reboot ... Starting udev: [ OK ] Loading default keymap (us): [ OK ] Setting hostname fc6.site: [ OK ] mdadm: /dev/md0 has been started with 2 drives. mdadm: error opening /dev/md1: No such file or directory No devices found Setting up Logical Volume Management: No volume groups found [ OK ] ... Now with "DEVICE partitions" in mdadm.conf: mdadm: /dev/md0 has been started with 2 drives. mdadm: error opening /dev/md1: No such file or directory You see, I have all the reason to be confused. >But in any case, this has exactly nothing to do with kernel. >It's 100% userspace issues, I'd say distribution-specific issues. At least I can agree. -`J' -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 question/problem [ot]
Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Jan 27 2007 10:31, Marc Perkel wrote: [] >> Sorry about that. I'm using Fedora Core 6. /dev/md0 >> and /dev/md1, buth of which are raid 1 arrays survive >> the reboot. But when I make a raid 0 out of those two >> raid arrays that's what is vanishing. > > That's interesting. I am using Aurora Corona, and all but md0 vanishes. > (Reason for that is that udev does not create the nodes md1-md31 on > boot, so mdadm cannot assemble the arrays.) This is nonsense. Mdadm creates those nodes automa[tg]ically - man mdadm, search for --auto. Udev has exactly nothing to do with mdX nodes. In order for an md array to be started up on boot, it has to be specified in /etc/mdadm.conf. With proper DEVICE line in there. That's all. If you're using raid0 on top of two raid1s (as opposed to using raid10 directly - which is more efficient and flexible), the DEVICE line in mdadm.conf should be either `partitions' (usually preferred way), or - in case direct device list is specified - should contain both real disks AND the raid1 arrays. But in any case, this has exactly nothing to do with kernel. It's 100% userspace issues, I'd say distribution-specific issues. /mjt - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 question/problem [ot]
Jan Engelhardt wrote: On Jan 27 2007 10:31, Marc Perkel wrote: [] Sorry about that. I'm using Fedora Core 6. /dev/md0 and /dev/md1, buth of which are raid 1 arrays survive the reboot. But when I make a raid 0 out of those two raid arrays that's what is vanishing. That's interesting. I am using Aurora Corona, and all but md0 vanishes. (Reason for that is that udev does not create the nodes md1-md31 on boot, so mdadm cannot assemble the arrays.) This is nonsense. Mdadm creates those nodes automa[tg]ically - man mdadm, search for --auto. Udev has exactly nothing to do with mdX nodes. In order for an md array to be started up on boot, it has to be specified in /etc/mdadm.conf. With proper DEVICE line in there. That's all. If you're using raid0 on top of two raid1s (as opposed to using raid10 directly - which is more efficient and flexible), the DEVICE line in mdadm.conf should be either `partitions' (usually preferred way), or - in case direct device list is specified - should contain both real disks AND the raid1 arrays. But in any case, this has exactly nothing to do with kernel. It's 100% userspace issues, I'd say distribution-specific issues. /mjt - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 question/problem [ot]
On Jan 28 2007 12:05, Michael Tokarev wrote: Jan Engelhardt wrote: That's interesting. I am using Aurora Corona, and all but md0 vanishes. (Reason for that is that udev does not create the nodes md1-md31 on boot, so mdadm cannot assemble the arrays.) This is nonsense. Mdadm creates those nodes automa[tg]ically - man mdadm, search for --auto. Udev has exactly nothing to do with mdX nodes. Note that `mdadm -As` _is_ run on FC6 boot. In order for an md array to be started up on boot, it has to be specified in /etc/mdadm.conf. With proper DEVICE line in there. That's all. That's how it is, and it does not work. openSUSE 10.2: no mdadm.conf _at all_, /etc/init.d/boot.d/boot.md is chkconfig'ed _out_, _no_ md kernel module is loaded, and I still have all the /dev/md nodes. FC6 standard install: no mdadm.conf, otherwise regular boot. /dev/md0 exists. Uhuh. FC6 with two raids: # fdisk -l Disk /dev/sdb: 8589 MB, 8589934592 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 1044 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdb1 1 123 987966 fd Linux raid autodetect /dev/sdb2 124 246 987997+ fd Linux raid autodetect /dev/sdb3 247 369 987997+ fd Linux raid autodetect /dev/sdb4 3701044 5421937+ fd Linux raid autodetect Disk /dev/sdc: 8589 MB, 8589934592 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 1044 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdc1 1 123 987966 fd Linux raid autodetect /dev/sdc2 124 246 987997+ fd Linux raid autodetect /dev/sdc3 247 369 987997+ fd Linux raid autodetect /dev/sdc4 3701044 5421937+ fd Linux raid autodetect # mdadm -C /dev/md0 -e 1.0 -l 1 -n 2 /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdc1 mdadm: array /dev/md0 started. # mdadm -C /dev/md1 -e 1.0 -l 1 -n 2 /dev/sdb2 /dev/sdc2 mdadm: error opening /dev/md1: No such file or directory Showstopper. # mknod /dev/md1 b 9 1 # mdadm -C /dev/md1 -e 1.0 -l 1 -n 2 /dev/sdb2 /dev/sdc2 mdadm: array /dev/md1 started. # cat /etc/mdadm.conf cat: /etc/mdadm.conf: No such file or directory # echo DEVICE /dev/sd[a-z][0-9] /etc/mdadm.conf # mdadm --detail --scan /etc/mdadm.conf # cat /etc/mdadm.conf DEVICE /dev/sd[a-z][0-9] ARRAY /dev/md0 level=raid1 num-devices=2 name=0 UUID=5ded6a11:3b9072f6:ae46efc7:d1628ea7 ARRAY /dev/md1 level=raid1 num-devices=2 name=1 UUID=2fda5608:d63d8287:761a7a09:68fe743f # reboot ... Starting udev: [ OK ] Loading default keymap (us): [ OK ] Setting hostname fc6.site: [ OK ] mdadm: /dev/md0 has been started with 2 drives. mdadm: error opening /dev/md1: No such file or directory No devices found Setting up Logical Volume Management: No volume groups found [ OK ] ... Now with DEVICE partitions in mdadm.conf: mdadm: /dev/md0 has been started with 2 drives. mdadm: error opening /dev/md1: No such file or directory You see, I have all the reason to be confused. But in any case, this has exactly nothing to do with kernel. It's 100% userspace issues, I'd say distribution-specific issues. At least I can agree. -`J' -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 question/problem [ot]
Marc Perkel wrote: I'm a little stumped trying to set up raid 10. I set it up and it worked but after a reboot it forgets my raid setup. Created 2 raid 1 arrays in md0 and md1 and that works and survives a reboot. However - I created a raid 0 on /dev/md2 made up of /dev/md0 and /dev/md1 and it worked but it forgets it after I reboot. The device /dev/md2 fails to survive a reboot. Created the /etc/mdadm.conf file but that doesn't seem to have made a difference. What am I missing? Thanks in advance. RAID-10 is not the same as RAID 0+1. There's a linux-raid mailing list, the archives may assist in understanding this. Either use RAID-10 or add md2 to the mdadm.conf to get it started at boot. I suggest using RAID-10. -- Bill Davidsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked. - from Slashdot - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 question/problem [ot]
Jan Engelhardt wrote: On Jan 28 2007 12:05, Michael Tokarev wrote: [] Mdadm creates those nodes automa[tg]ically - man mdadm, search for --auto. Note that `mdadm -As` _is_ run on FC6 boot. See above -- man mdadm, search for --auto. -A = --assemble, -s = --scan. In order for an md array to be started up on boot, it has to be specified in /etc/mdadm.conf. With proper DEVICE line in there. That's all. That's how it is, and it does not work. Sure. Because of this missing --auto flag. openSUSE 10.2: no mdadm.conf _at all_, /etc/init.d/boot.d/boot.md is chkconfig'ed _out_, _no_ md kernel module is loaded, and I still have all the /dev/md nodes. And no udev. Or, alternatively, *all* md devices are created by some other script or somesuch. There's No Magic (tm). [] # mdadm -C /dev/md1 -e 1.0 -l 1 -n 2 /dev/sdb2 /dev/sdc2 mdadm: error opening /dev/md1: No such file or directory Showstopper. Nonsense. See above again, man mdadm, search for --auto. [] You see, I have all the reason to be confused. Yeah, this is quite... confusing. It's all due to the way how mdadm iteracts with the kernel and how udev works - all together. The thing is - in order to assemble an array, proper device node has to be in place. But udev wont create it until array is assembled. Chickeneggs problem. Exactly due to this, the node(s) can be created with mdadm (with --auto option, whicih can be specified in mdadm.conf too), AND/OR with some startup script before invoking mdadm, AND/OR when the system isn't broken by udevd (with ol'good static /dev). But in any case, this has exactly nothing to do with kernel. It's 100% userspace issues, I'd say distribution-specific issues. ..And each distribution uses its own kludge/workaround/solution for this stuff - which you demonstrated... ;) /mjt - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 question/problem [ot]
Bill Davidsen wrote: [] RAID-10 is not the same as RAID 0+1. It is. Yes, there's separate module for raid10, but what it - basically - does is the same as raid0 module over two raid1 modules will do. It's just a bit more efficient (less levels, more room for optimisations), easy to use (you'll have single array instead of at least 3), and a bit more flexible; at the same way it's less widely tested... But the end result is basically the same for both ways. /mjt - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 question/problem [ot]
On Jan 28 2007 22:49, Michael Tokarev wrote: Bill Davidsen wrote: [] RAID-10 is not the same as RAID 0+1. It is. Yes, there's separate module for raid10, but what it - basically - does is the same as raid0 module over two raid1 modules will do. It's just a bit more efficient (less levels, more room for optimisations), easy to use (you'll have single array instead of at least 3), and a bit more flexible; at the same way it's less widely tested... And most importantly, raid10 allows you to spread the array data over an odd number of devices while still having [at least] 2 copies of each block. Hm, I really wished resizing was implemented for raid0 and raid10 too... ;) -`J' -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 question/problem [ot]
On Jan 28 2007 22:44, Michael Tokarev wrote: Mdadm creates those nodes automa[tg]ically - man mdadm, search for --auto. Note that `mdadm -As` _is_ run on FC6 boot. See above -- man mdadm, search for --auto. -A = --assemble, -s = --scan. Oops, thank you. So mdadm -A -s --auto=yes did the right thing, and probably is what was intended. And now for tonight's 1000$ question: why does fedora don't do that, making me edit the mdadm -A -s line in /etc/rc.d/rc.sysvinit? -`J' -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 question/problem [ot]
On Jan 27 2007 10:42, Marc Perkel wrote: >> > >> >I'm using Fedora Core 6. /dev/md0 and /dev/md1, buth of which are raid >> >1 arrays survive the reboot. But when I make a raid 0 out of those two >> >raid arrays that's what is vanishing. >> >> That's interesting. I am using Aurora Corona [FC6+RHide], and all but >> md0 vanishes. (Reason for that is that udev does not create the nodes >> md1-md31 on boot, so mdadm cannot assemble the arrays.) > >What do you have to do to get UDEV to create /dev/md2? Is there a config >file for that? That's the big question. On openSUSE 10.2, all the md devices get created automatically. I suppose that happens as part of udev processing all the queued kernel events at bootup. On default FC6 install (i.e. without any raid), only /dev/md0 is present (like in Aurora). That alone, and that you got md1 there, and I don't, is strange. I think I found it. udev does not do md at all, for some reason. This line in /etc/rc.d/rc.sysinit is quite "offending": [ -x /sbin/nash ] && echo "raidautorun /dev/md0" | nash --quiet Starting a init=/bin/bash prompt and doing "/usr/sbin/udevmonitor &" there reveals: bash-3.1# echo raidautorun /dev/md0 | /sbin/nash --quiet UEVENT[1169934663.372139] add@/block/md0 bash-3.1# echo raidautorun /dev/md1 | /sbin/nash --quiet UEVENT[1169934667.601027] add@/block/md1 No sign of md1. (Wtf here!) I can see why it's broken, but to nash every md device sounds like the worst solution around. I'd say the Fedora boot process is severely broken wrt. md. Well, what's your rc.sysinit looking like, since you seem to be having a md1 floating around? -`J' -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 question/problem [ot]
Also - when running software raid 10 - what's a good chunck size these days? Running raid 10 with 4 500 GB SATA2 drives with 16mb buffers? Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 question/problem [ot]
--- Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 27 2007 10:31, Marc Perkel wrote: > >--- Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> >I'm a little stumped trying to set up raid 10. I > >> set > >> >it up and it worked but after a reboot it > forgets > >> my > >> >raid setup. > >> > >> Now, let's hear the name of the distribution you > >> use. > >> > >> BTW, is md1 also disappearing? > > > >Sorry about that. I'm using Fedora Core 6. /dev/md0 > >and /dev/md1, buth of which are raid 1 arrays > survive > >the reboot. But when I make a raid 0 out of those > two > >raid arrays that's what is vanishing. > > That's interesting. I am using Aurora Corona, and > all but md0 vanishes. > (Reason for that is that udev does not create the > nodes md1-md31 on > boot, so mdadm cannot assemble the arrays.) > What do you have to do to get UDEV to create /dev/md2? Is there a config file for that? Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 question/problem [ot]
On Jan 27 2007 10:31, Marc Perkel wrote: >--- Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >I'm a little stumped trying to set up raid 10. I >> set >> >it up and it worked but after a reboot it forgets >> my >> >raid setup. >> >> Now, let's hear the name of the distribution you >> use. >> >> BTW, is md1 also disappearing? > >Sorry about that. I'm using Fedora Core 6. /dev/md0 >and /dev/md1, buth of which are raid 1 arrays survive >the reboot. But when I make a raid 0 out of those two >raid arrays that's what is vanishing. That's interesting. I am using Aurora Corona, and all but md0 vanishes. (Reason for that is that udev does not create the nodes md1-md31 on boot, so mdadm cannot assemble the arrays.) -`J' -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 question/problem [ot]
--- Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >I'm a little stumped trying to set up raid 10. I > set > >it up and it worked but after a reboot it forgets > my > >raid setup. > > Now, let's hear the name of the distribution you > use. > > BTW, is md1 also disappearing? > Sorry about that. I'm using Fedora Core 6. /dev/md0 and /dev/md1, buth of which are raid 1 arrays survive the reboot. But when I make a raid 0 out of those two raid arrays that's what is vanishing. Thanks for your help. Finding fabulous fares is fun. Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 question/problem [ot]
>I'm a little stumped trying to set up raid 10. I set >it up and it worked but after a reboot it forgets my >raid setup. Now, let's hear the name of the distribution you use. BTW, is md1 also disappearing? -`J' -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Raid 10 question/problem [ot]
I'm a little stumped trying to set up raid 10. I set it up and it worked but after a reboot it forgets my raid setup. Created 2 raid 1 arrays in md0 and md1 and that works and survives a reboot. However - I created a raid 0 on /dev/md2 made up of /dev/md0 and /dev/md1 and it worked but it forgets it after I reboot. The device /dev/md2 fails to survive a reboot. Created the /etc/mdadm.conf file but that doesn't seem to have made a difference. What am I missing? Thanks in advance. Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Raid 10 question/problem [ot]
I'm a little stumped trying to set up raid 10. I set it up and it worked but after a reboot it forgets my raid setup. Created 2 raid 1 arrays in md0 and md1 and that works and survives a reboot. However - I created a raid 0 on /dev/md2 made up of /dev/md0 and /dev/md1 and it worked but it forgets it after I reboot. The device /dev/md2 fails to survive a reboot. Created the /etc/mdadm.conf file but that doesn't seem to have made a difference. What am I missing? Thanks in advance. Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 question/problem [ot]
I'm a little stumped trying to set up raid 10. I set it up and it worked but after a reboot it forgets my raid setup. Now, let's hear the name of the distribution you use. BTW, is md1 also disappearing? -`J' -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 question/problem [ot]
--- Jan Engelhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm a little stumped trying to set up raid 10. I set it up and it worked but after a reboot it forgets my raid setup. Now, let's hear the name of the distribution you use. BTW, is md1 also disappearing? Sorry about that. I'm using Fedora Core 6. /dev/md0 and /dev/md1, buth of which are raid 1 arrays survive the reboot. But when I make a raid 0 out of those two raid arrays that's what is vanishing. Thanks for your help. Finding fabulous fares is fun. Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 question/problem [ot]
On Jan 27 2007 10:31, Marc Perkel wrote: --- Jan Engelhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm a little stumped trying to set up raid 10. I set it up and it worked but after a reboot it forgets my raid setup. Now, let's hear the name of the distribution you use. BTW, is md1 also disappearing? Sorry about that. I'm using Fedora Core 6. /dev/md0 and /dev/md1, buth of which are raid 1 arrays survive the reboot. But when I make a raid 0 out of those two raid arrays that's what is vanishing. That's interesting. I am using Aurora Corona, and all but md0 vanishes. (Reason for that is that udev does not create the nodes md1-md31 on boot, so mdadm cannot assemble the arrays.) -`J' -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 question/problem [ot]
--- Jan Engelhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 27 2007 10:31, Marc Perkel wrote: --- Jan Engelhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm a little stumped trying to set up raid 10. I set it up and it worked but after a reboot it forgets my raid setup. Now, let's hear the name of the distribution you use. BTW, is md1 also disappearing? Sorry about that. I'm using Fedora Core 6. /dev/md0 and /dev/md1, buth of which are raid 1 arrays survive the reboot. But when I make a raid 0 out of those two raid arrays that's what is vanishing. That's interesting. I am using Aurora Corona, and all but md0 vanishes. (Reason for that is that udev does not create the nodes md1-md31 on boot, so mdadm cannot assemble the arrays.) What do you have to do to get UDEV to create /dev/md2? Is there a config file for that? Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 question/problem [ot]
Also - when running software raid 10 - what's a good chunck size these days? Running raid 10 with 4 500 GB SATA2 drives with 16mb buffers? Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 question/problem [ot]
On Jan 27 2007 10:42, Marc Perkel wrote: I'm using Fedora Core 6. /dev/md0 and /dev/md1, buth of which are raid 1 arrays survive the reboot. But when I make a raid 0 out of those two raid arrays that's what is vanishing. That's interesting. I am using Aurora Corona [FC6+RHide], and all but md0 vanishes. (Reason for that is that udev does not create the nodes md1-md31 on boot, so mdadm cannot assemble the arrays.) What do you have to do to get UDEV to create /dev/md2? Is there a config file for that? That's the big question. On openSUSE 10.2, all the md devices get created automatically. I suppose that happens as part of udev processing all the queued kernel events at bootup. On default FC6 install (i.e. without any raid), only /dev/md0 is present (like in Aurora). That alone, and that you got md1 there, and I don't, is strange. I think I found it. udev does not do md at all, for some reason. This line in /etc/rc.d/rc.sysinit is quite offending: [ -x /sbin/nash ] echo raidautorun /dev/md0 | nash --quiet Starting a init=/bin/bash prompt and doing /usr/sbin/udevmonitor there reveals: bash-3.1# echo raidautorun /dev/md0 | /sbin/nash --quiet UEVENT[1169934663.372139] add@/block/md0 bash-3.1# echo raidautorun /dev/md1 | /sbin/nash --quiet UEVENT[1169934667.601027] add@/block/md1 No sign of md1. (Wtf here!) I can see why it's broken, but to nash every md device sounds like the worst solution around. I'd say the Fedora boot process is severely broken wrt. md. Well, what's your rc.sysinit looking like, since you seem to be having a md1 floating around? -`J' -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
