> From: Martin K. Petersen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 11:49 AM
> To: Guy
> Cc: 'Frank Wittig'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: Questions about software RAID
>
> >>>>> "Guy"
Hervé Eychenne wrote:
> Molle Bestefich wrote:
> > There seems to be an obvious lack of a properly thought out interface
> > to notify userspace applications of MD events (disk failed --> go
> > light a LED, etc).
> >
> > I'm not sure how a proper interface could be done (so I'm basically
> > just
> "Guy" == Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Guy> I want the failed disk to light a red LED.
Guy> I want the tray the disk is in to light a red LED.
Guy> I want the cabinet the tray is in to light a red LED.
That's easy when you have a custom hardware RAID enclosure that you
have control
On 2005-04-20T13:16:24, "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There seems to be an obvious lack of a properly thought out interface
> > to notify userspace applications of MD events (disk failed --> go
> > light a LED, etc).
> Well, that's probably truish. I've been meaning to ask for a
Molle Bestefich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There seems to be an obvious lack of a properly thought out interface
> to notify userspace applications of MD events (disk failed --> go
> light a LED, etc).
Well, that's probably truish. I've been meaning to ask for a per-device
sysctl interface for s
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 11:26:28AM +0200, Molle Bestefich wrote:
> David Greaves wrote:
> > Guy wrote:
> > > Well, I agree with KISS, but from the operator's point of view!
> > >
> > > I want...
> > [snip]
> >
> > Fair enough.
> [snip]
> > should the LED control code be built into mdadm?
> Obvio
David Greaves wrote:
> Guy wrote:
> > Well, I agree with KISS, but from the operator's point of view!
> >
> > I want...
> [snip]
>
> Fair enough.
[snip]
> should the LED control code be built into mdadm?
Obviously not.
But currently, a LED control app would have to pull information from
/proc/mds
Guy wrote:
Well, I agree with KISS, but from the operator's point of view!
I want...
Fair enough.
But I think the point is - should you expect the mdadm command to do all
that?
or do you think that it would make sense to stick with a layered
approach that allows anything from my Zaurus PDA to an
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, Guy wrote:
> Well, I agree with KISS, but from the operator's point of view!
>
> I want the failed disk to light a red LED.
> I want the tray the disk is in to light a red LED.
> I want the cabinet the tray is in to light a red LED.
> I want the re-build to the spare to star
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:linux-raid-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Frank Wittig
> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 3:47 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: Questions about software RAID
>
Hervé Eychenne wrote:
>Maybe you are an experienced guy so it seems so simple to you... but
>I'm always amused when an experienced guy refuses to make things
>simpler for those who aren't as much as he is. And sends them to
>Microsoft. Great.
>
>
i don't send you to microsoft. i want you to unde
On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 06:53:52PM +0200, Frank Wittig wrote:
> >>And those who do can type:
> >> fdisk -l /dev/sda | grep -i fd | cut -f1 -d' ' | xargs -n1 mdadm -r
> >
> >
> > I really don't like kludgy things like that...
> [...]
> > Isn't the insertion/removal of a disk common enough to jus
Hervé Eychenne wrote:
>>And those who do can type:
>> fdisk -l /dev/sda | grep -i fd | cut -f1 -d' ' | xargs -n1 mdadm -r
>
>
> I really don't like kludgy things like that...
[...]
> Isn't the insertion/removal of a disk common enough to justify the
> addition of a simple and clean mdadm option
On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 04:27:14PM +0100, David Greaves wrote:
> Hervé Eychenne wrote:
> >On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 01:00:11PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>First you have to look if there are partitions on that disk to which no
> >>data was written since the disk failed (this typically concer
Hervé Eychenne wrote:
On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 01:00:11PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First you have to look if there are partitions on that disk to which no
data was written since the disk failed (this typically concerns the swap
partition). These partitions have to be marked faulty by hand usi
On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 01:00:11PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >You have to mdadm -r remove it and re-add it once you restore the disk.
> First you have to look if there are partitions on that disk to which no
> data was written since the disk failed (this typically concerns the swap
> part
David Greaves wrote:
Luca Berra wrote:
many people find it easier to understand if raid partitions are set to
0XFD. kernel autodetection is broken and should not be relied upon.
Could you clarify what is broken?
I understood that it was simplistic (ie if you have a raid0 built over a
raid5
or some
A followup about one single question.
tmp wrote:
[]
Is it correct that I can use whole disks (/dev/hdb) only if I make a
partitionable array and thus creates the partitions UPON the raid
mechanism?
Just don't use whole disks for md arrays. *Especially* if you want
to create partitions inside the a
>Devid wrote:
>5) Removing a disk requires that I do a "mdadm -r" on all the
partitions
>that is involved in a RAID array. I attempt to by a hot-swap capable
>controler, so what happens if I just pull out the disk without this
>manual removal command?
as far as m
Luca Berra wrote:
many people find it easier to understand if raid partitions are set to
0XFD. kernel autodetection is broken and should not be relied upon.
Could you clarify what is broken?
I understood that it was simplistic (ie if you have a raid0 built over a
raid5
or something exotic then it
On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 01:12:16AM +0200, tmp wrote:
mdadm.conf may be considered as the replacement for raidtab. When mdadm
starts it consults this file and starts the raid arrays correspondingly.
This leads to the following:
yes, and no
mdadm does not need a configuration, but the config file hel
tmp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've read "man mdadm" and "man mdadm.conf" but I certainly doesn't have
> an overview of software RAID.
Then try using it instead/as well as reading about it, and you will
obtain a more cmprehensive understanding.
> OK. The HOWTO describes mostly a raidtools conte
Thanks for your answers! They led to a couple of new questions,
however. :-)
I've read "man mdadm" and "man mdadm.conf" but I certainly doesn't have
an overview of software RAID.
> yes
> raidtab is deprecated - man mdadm
OK. The HOWTO describes mostly a raidtools context, however. Is the
followi
tmp wrote:
>2) The new disk has to be manually partitioned before beeing used in the
>array. What happens if the new partitions are larger than other
>partitions used in the array? What happens if they are smaller?
>
>
there's no problem to create partitions which have exactly the same size
as t
tmp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1) I have a RAID-1 setup with one spare disk. A disk crashes and the
> spare disk takes over. Now, when the crashed disk is replaced with a new
> one, what is then happening with the role of the spare disk? Is it
> reverting to its old role as spare disk?
Try it an
tmp wrote:
I read the software RAID-HOWTO, but the below 6 questions is still
unclear. I have asked around on IRC-channels and it seems that I am not
the only one being confused. Maybe the HOWTO could be updated to
clearify the below items?
1) I have a RAID-1 setup with one spare disk. A disk crash
I read the software RAID-HOWTO, but the below 6 questions is still
unclear. I have asked around on IRC-channels and it seems that I am not
the only one being confused. Maybe the HOWTO could be updated to
clearify the below items?
1) I have a RAID-1 setup with one spare disk. A disk crashes and th
27 matches
Mail list logo
