stride / stripe alignment on LVM ?

Hello, I have raid5 /dev/md1, --chunk=128 --metadata=1.1. On it I have created LVM volume called 'raid5', and finally a logical volume 'backup'. Then I formatted it with command: mkfs.ext3 -b 4096 -E stride=32 -E resize=550292480 /dev/raid5/backup And because LVM is putting its own metadata

Re: Strange CPU occupation... and system hangs

BERTRAND Joël wrote: snip and some process are in D state : Root gershwin:[/etc] ps auwx | grep D USER PID %CPU %MEMVSZ RSS TTY STAT START TIME COMMAND root 270 0.0 0.0 0 0 ?DOct27 1:17 [pdflush] root 3676 0.9 0.0 0 0 ?

Re: Bug in processing dependencies by async_tx_submit() ?

Hi Dan, Honestly I tried to fix this quickly using the approach similar to proposed by you, with one addition though (in fact, deletion of BUG_ON(chan == tx-chan) in async_tx_run_dependencies()). And this led to Kernel stack overflow. This happened because of the recurseve calling

Re: Raid-10 mount at startup always has problem

Daniel L. Miller wrote: Doug Ledford wrote: Nah. Even if we had concluded that udev was to blame here, I'm not entirely certain that we hadn't left Daniel with the impression that we suspected it versus blamed it, so reiterating it doesn't hurt. And I'm sure no one has given him a fix for the

Re: Implementing low level timeouts within MD

Alberto Alonso wrote: On Tue, 2007-10-30 at 13:39 -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: Really, you've only been bitten by three so far. Serverworks PATA (which I tend to agree with the other person, I would probably chock 3 types of bugs is too many, it basically affected all my customers with

Re: Implementing low level timeouts within MD

Alberto Alonso wrote: On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 13:22 -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: What kernels were these under? Yes, these 3 were all SATA. The kernels (in the same order as above) are: * 2.4.21-4.ELsmp #1 (Basically RHEL v3) * 2.6.18-4-686 #1 SMP on a Fedora Core release 2 *

Re: Requesting migrate device options for raid5/6

Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Hi, I would welcome if someone could work on a new feature for raid5/6 that would allow replacing a disk in a raid5/6 with a new one without having to degrade the array. Consider the following situation: raid5 md0 : sda sdb sdc Now sda gives a SMART - failure

Re: switching root fs '/' to boot from RAID1 with grub

Doug Ledford wrote: device /dev/sda (hd0) root (hd0,0) install --stage2=/boot/grub/stage2 /boot/grub/stage1 (hd0) /boot/grub/e2fs_stage1_5 p /boot/grub/stage2 /boot/grub/menu.lst device /dev/hdc (hd0) root (hd0,0) install --stage2=/boot/grub/stage2 /boot/grub/stage1 (hd0)

Re: switching root fs '/' to boot from RAID1 with grub

On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 10:31 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: Doug Ledford wrote: device /dev/sda (hd0) root (hd0,0) install --stage2=/boot/grub/stage2 /boot/grub/stage1 (hd0) /boot/grub/e2fs_stage1_5 p /boot/grub/stage2 /boot/grub/menu.lst device /dev/hdc (hd0) root (hd0,0) install

Re: switching root fs '/' to boot from RAID1 with grub

Doug Ledford wrote: Correct, and that's what you want. The alternative is that if the BIOS can see the first disk but it's broken and can't be used, and if you have the boot sector on the second disk set to read from BIOS disk 0x81 because you ASSuMEd the first disk would be broken but still

Re: switching root fs '/' to boot from RAID1 with grub

Doug Ledford said: (by the date of Thu, 01 Nov 2007 14:30:58 -0400) So, what I said is true, the MBR will search on the disk it is being run from for the files it needs: 0x80. my motherboard allows to pick a boot device if I press F11 during boot. Do you mean, that no matter which HDD I

Re: Implementing low level timeouts within MD

On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 00:08 -0500, Alberto Alonso wrote: On Tue, 2007-10-30 at 13:39 -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: Really, you've only been bitten by three so far. Serverworks PATA (which I tend to agree with the other person, I would probably chock 3 types of bugs is too many, it

Re: switching root fs '/' to boot from RAID1 with grub

On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 20:04 +0100, Janek Kozicki wrote: Doug Ledford said: (by the date of Thu, 01 Nov 2007 14:30:58 -0400) So, what I said is true, the MBR will search on the disk it is being run from for the files it needs: 0x80. my motherboard allows to pick a boot device if I

Re: stride / stripe alignment on LVM ?

On Thursday November 1, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I have raid5 /dev/md1, --chunk=128 --metadata=1.1. On it I have created LVM volume called 'raid5', and finally a logical volume 'backup'. Then I formatted it with command: mkfs.ext3 -b 4096 -E stride=32 -E resize=550292480

Re: Superblocks

On Tuesday October 30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Which is the default type of superblock? 0.90 or 1.0? The default default is 0.90. However a local device can be set in mdadm.conf with e.g. CREATE metdata=1.0 NeilBrown - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in

Re: Bug in processing dependencies by async_tx_submit() ?

On 11/1/07, Yuri Tikhonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Dan, Honestly I tried to fix this quickly using the approach similar to proposed by you, with one addition though (in fact, deletion of BUG_ON(chan == tx-chan) in async_tx_run_dependencies()). And this led to Kernel stack overflow.

[PATCH] md: Fix misapplied patch in raid5.c

commit 4ae3f847e49e3787eca91bced31f8fd328d50496 did not get applied correctly, presumably due to substantial similarities between handle_stripe5 and handle_stripe6. This patch (with lots of context) moves the chunk of new code from handle_stripe6 (where it isn't needed (yet)) to handle_stripe5.