On Friday July 7, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps I am misunderstanding how assemble works, but I have created a
new RAID 1 array on a pair of SCSI drives and am having difficulty
re-assembling it after a reboot.
The relevent mdadm.conf entry looks like this:
ARRAY /dev/md3
On Monday July 3, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have Fedora Core 5 installed with mirroring on the Boot partition
and root partition. I created a Logical Volume Group on the mirrored
root partition.
How does md figure out which partitions are actually specified. It
says it stores the uuid in
On Sunday July 2, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Neil hello.
I have been looking at the raid5 code trying to understand why writes
performance is so poor.
raid5 write performance is expected to be poor, as you often need to
pre-read data or parity before the write can be issued.
If I am not
On Monday July 3, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
the following patch aims at solving an issue that is confusing a lot of
users.
when using udev, device files are created only when devices are
registered with the kernel, and md devices are registered only when
started.
mdadm needs the
On Saturday July 1, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a system which was running several raid1 devices (md0 - md2) using
2 physical drives (hde, and hdg). I wanted to swap out these drives for
two different ones, so I did the following:
1) swap out hdg for a new drive
2) create degraded
On Friday June 30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jun 2006, Francois Barre wrote:
Did you try upgrading mdadm yet ?
yes, I have version 2.5 now, and it produces the same results.
Try adding '--force' to the -A line.
That tells mdadm to try really hard to assemble the array.
You
On Friday June 30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
More problems ...
As reported I have 4x WD5000YS (Caviar RE2 500 GB) in a md RAID5
array. I've been benchmarking and otherwise testing the new array
these last few days, and apart from the fact that the md doesn't shut
down properly I've had no
On Thursday June 29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why should this trickery be needed? When an array is mounted r/o it
should be clean. How can it be dirty. I assume readonly implies noatime,
I mount physically readonly devices without explicitly saying noatime
and nothing whines.
The
On Wednesday June 28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've seen a few comments to the effect that some disks have problems when
used in a RAID setup and I'm a bit preplexed as to why this might be..
What's the difference between a drive in a RAID set (either s/w or h/w)
and a drive on it's own,
On Wednesday June 28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I'm facing this problem:
when my Linux box detects a POWER FAIL event from the UPS, it
starts a normal shutdown. Just before the normal kernel poweroff,
it sends to the UPS a signal on the serial line which says
cut-off the power
On Tuesday June 27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello All , What change in Glibc mekes this necessary ? Is there a
method available to include the getpwnam getgrnam structures so that
full static build will work . Tia , JimL
gcc -Wall -Werror -Wstrict-prototypes -ggdb
I am pleased to announce the availability of
mdadm version 2.5.2
It is available at the usual places:
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~neilb/source/mdadm/
and
countrycode=xx.
http://www.${countrycode}kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/raid/mdadm/
and via git at
git://neil.brown.name/mdadm
On Friday June 23, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why would you ever want to reduce the size of a raid5 in this way?
A feature that would have been useful to me a few times is the ability
to shrink an array by whole disks.
Example:
8x 300 GB disks - 2100 GB raw capacity
shrink file
On Monday June 26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Neil Brown wrote:
snip
Alternately you can apply the following patch to the kernel and
version-1 superblocks should work better.
-stable material?
Maybe. I'm not sure it exactly qualifies, but I might try sending it
to them and see what
On Monday June 26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is what I get now, after creating with fdisk /dev/hdb1 and
/dev/hdc1 as linux raid autodetect partitions
So I'm totally confused now.
You said it was 'linear', but the boot log showed 'raid0'.
The drives didn't have a partition table
On Monday June 26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is what I get now, after creating with fdisk /dev/hdb1 and
/dev/hdc1 as linux raid autodetect partitions
So I'm totally confused now.
You said it was 'linear', but the boot log showed 'raid0'.
The drives didn't have a partition table
On Sunday June 25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi!
There's a bug in Kernel 2.6.17 and / or mdadm which prevents (re)adding
a disk to a degraded RAID5-Array.
Thank you for the detailed report.
The bug is in the md driver in the kernel (not in mdadm), and only
affects version-1 superblocks.
On Friday June 23, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem is that there is no cost effective backup available.
One-liner questions :
- How does Google make backups ?
No, Google ARE the backups :-)
- Aren't tapes dead yet ?
LTO-3 does 300Gig, and LTO-4 is planned.
They may not cope with
On Monday June 19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Neil hello
if i am not mistaken here:
in first instance of : if(bi) ...
...
you return without setting to NULL
Yes, you are right. Thanks.
And fixing that bug removes the crash.
However
I've been doing a few tests and
On Thursday June 22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Neil Brown wrote:
On Monday June 19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to shrink the size of a RAID5 array - is this
possible? My first attempt shrinking 1.4Tb to 600Gb,
mdadm --grow /dev/md5 --size=629145600
gives
mdadm
On Tuesday June 20, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nigel J. Terry wrote:
Well good news and bad news I'm afraid...
Well I would like to be able to tell you that the time calculation now
works, but I can't. Here's why: Why I rebooted with the newly built
kernel, it decided to hit the magic 21
On Thursday June 22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marc L. de Bruin wrote:
Situation: /dev/md0, type raid1, containing 2 active devices
(/dev/hda1 and /dev/hdc1) and 2 spare devices (/dev/hde1 and /dev/hdg1).
Those two spare 'partitions' are the only partitions on those disks
and
On Thursday June 22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks Neil for your quick reply. Would it be possible to elaborate a
bit on the problem and the solution? I guess I won't be on 2.6.18 for
some time...
When an array has been idle (no writes) for a short time (20 or 200
ms, depending on
On Monday June 19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We can imagine that there is a raid0 array whose layerout is drawn in the
attachment.
Take this for example.
There are 3 zones totally, and their zone-nb_dev is 5,4,3 respectively.
In the raid0_make_request function, the var block is the offset of
On Monday June 19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That seems to have fixed it. The reshape is now progressing and
there are no apparent errors in dmesg. Details below.
Great!
I'll send another confirmation tomorrow when hopefully it has finished :-)
Many thanks for a great product and great
On Monday June 19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Neil Brown wrote:
I am pleased to announce the availability of
mdadm version 2.5.1
What the heck, here's another one. :) This one is slightly more serious.
We're getting a device of 0:0 in Fail events from the mdadm monitor
sometimes now
On Monday June 19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When I read the code of raid0_make_request,I meet some questions.
1\ block = bio-bi_sector 1,it's the device offset in kilotytes.
so why do we use block substract zone-zone_offset? The
zone-zone_offset is the zone offset relative the mddev in
On Saturday June 17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any ideas what I should do next? Thanks
Looks like you've probably hit a bug. I'll need a bit more info
though.
First:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# cat /proc/mdstat
Personalities : [raid5] [raid4]
md0 : active raid5 sdb1[1] sda1[0] hdc1[4](S)
OK, thanks for the extra details. I'll have a look and see what I can
find, but it'll probably be a couple of days before I have anything
useful for you.
NeilBrown
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo
On Friday June 16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You have to grow the ext3 fs separately. ext2resize /dev/mdX. Keep in
mind this can only be done off-line.
ext3 can be resized online. I think ext2resize in the latest release
will do the right thing whether it is online or not.
There is a limit
On Thursday June 15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 10:46:09AM -0500, Bill Cizek wrote:
Niccolo Rigacci wrote:
When the sync is complete, the machine start to respond again
perfectly.
I was able to work around this by lowering
/proc/sys/dev/raid/speed_limit_max
On Friday June 16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And is there a way if more then 1 disks goes offline, for the whole
array to be taken offline? My understanding of raid5 is loose 1+ disks
and nothing on the raid would be readable. this is not the case here.
Nothing will be writable, but some
On Friday June 16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks a lot.I went through the code again following your guide.But I
still can't understand how the bio-bi_sector and bio-bi_dev are
computed.I don't know what the var 'block' stands for.
Could you explain them to me ?
'block' is simply
On Thursday June 15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am confronted with a big problem of the raid6 algorithm,
when recently I learn the raid6 code of linux 2.6 you have contributed
.
Unfortunately I can not understand the algorithm of P +Q parity in
this program . Is this some formula
On Tuesday June 13, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hello,everyone.
I am studying the code of raid0.But I find that the logic of
raid0_make_request is a little difficult to understand.
Who can tell me what the function of raid0_make_request will do eventually?
One of two possibilities.
Most often
On Friday June 9, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Neil hello
Sorry for the delay. too many things to do.
You aren't alone there!
I have implemented all said in :
http://www.spinics.net/lists/raid/msg11838.html
As always I have some questions:
1. mergeable_bvec
I did not understand
On Saturday June 3, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey Neil,
It would sure be nice if the log contained any info about the error
correction that's been done rather than simply saying read error
corrected, like which array chunk, device and sector was corrected. I'm
having a persistent pending
On Friday June 2, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have some old controler Mylex Acceleraid 170LP with 6 SCSI 36GB disks on
it. Running hardware raid5 resulted with very poor performance (7Mb/sec in
sequential writing, with horrid iowait).
So I configured it to export 6 logical disks and tried
On Friday June 2, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jun 2006, Neil Brown wrote:
I've got one more long-shot I would like to try first. If you could
backout that change to ll_rw_block, and apply this patch instead.
Then when it hangs, just cat the stripe_cache_active file and see
On Friday June 2, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In any regard:
I'm talking about triggering the following functionality:
echo check /sys/block/mdX/md/sync_action
echo repair /sys/block/mdX/md/sync_action
On a RAID5, and soon a RAID6, I'm looking to set up a cron job, and am
trying to
On Wednesday May 31, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Where I was working most recently some systems were using RAID5E (RAID5
with both the parity and hot spare distributed). This seems to be highly
desirable for small arrays, where spreading head motion over one more
drive will improve
On Wednesday May 31, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* NeilBrown ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
This allows the state of an md/array to be directly controlled
via sysfs and adds the ability to stop and array without
tearing it down.
Array states/settings:
clear
No devices, no
On Wednesday May 31, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* NeilBrown ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
+static struct md_sysfs_entry md_layout =
+__ATTR(layout, 0655, layout_show, layout_store);
0644?
I think the correct response is Doh! :-)
Yes, thanks,
NeilBrown
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
On Tuesday May 30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I am trying to create a RAID5 array out of 3 160GB SATA drives. After
i create the array i want to partition the device into 2 partitions.
The system lies on a SCSI disk and the 2 partitions will be used for
data storage.
The SATA host
On Tuesday May 30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 30 May 2006, Neil Brown wrote:
Could you try this patch please? On top of the rest.
And if it doesn't fail in a couple of days, tell me how regularly the
message
kblockd_schedule_work failed
gets printed.
i'm running
On Tuesday May 30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
actually i think the rate is higher... i'm not sure why, but klogd doesn't
seem to keep up with it:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# grep -c kblockd_schedule_work /var/log/messages
31
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# dmesg | grep -c kblockd_schedule_work
8192
# grep
On Monday May 29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 12:08:25PM +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
On Sunday May 28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for the patches. They are greatly appreciated.
You're welcome
- mdadm-2.3.1-kernel-byteswap-include-fix.patch
reverts a change
On Saturday May 27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 27 May 2006, Neil Brown wrote:
Thanks. This narrows it down quite a bit... too much infact: I can
now say for sure that this cannot possible happen :-)
2/ The message.gz you sent earlier with the
echo t /proc/sysrq
On Sunday May 28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 04:33:08PM +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
I am pleased to announce the availability of
mdadm version 2.5
hello,
i tried rebuilding mdadm 2.5 on current mandriva cooker, which uses
gcc-4.1.1, glibc-2.4 and dietlibc 0.29
On Sunday May 28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Luca,
maybe you better add an install-static target.
you're right, that would be a cleaner approach. I've don so, and while
doing so added install-tcc, install-ulibc, install-klibc too.
And while I'm busy in the Makefile anyway I've made
On Friday May 26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 08:39:26AM +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
Presumably you have a 'DEVICE' line in mdadm.conf too? What is it.
My first guess is that it isn't listing /dev/sdd? somehow.
Neil,
i am seeing a lot of people that fall in this same
On Friday May 26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I had no idea about this particular configuration requirement. None of
just to be clear: it's not a requirement. if you want the very nice
auto-assembling behavior, you need to designate the auto-assemblable
partitions. but you can assemble
On Friday May 26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 25 May 2006, Craig Hollabaugh wrote:
That did it! I set the partition FS Types from 'Linux' to 'Linux raid
autodetect' after my last re-sync completed. Manually stopped and
started the array. Things looked good, so I crossed my fingers
On Thursday May 25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi, for various reasons i'll need to run mdadm on a 2.4 kernel.
Now I have 2.4.32 kernel.
Take a look:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# mdadm --create --verbose /dev/md0 --level=1
--bitmap=/root/md0bitmap -n 2 /dev/nda /dev/ndb --force --assume-clean
On Friday May 26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2006, Neil Brown wrote:
i applied them against 2.6.16.18 and two days later i got my first hang...
below is the stripe_cache foo.
thanks
-dean
neemlark:~# cd /sys/block/md4/md/
neemlark:/sys/block/md4/md# cat
On Thursday May 25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From dmesg
md: Autodetecting RAID arrays.
md: autorun ...
md: considering sdl1 ...
md: adding sdl1 ...
md: adding sdi1 ...
md: adding sdh1 ...
md: adding sdg1 ...
md: adding sdf1 ...
md: adding sde1 ...
md: adding sdd1 ...
md:
On Wednesday May 24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know this has come up before, but a few quick googles hasn't answered my
questions - I'm after the max. array size that can be created under
bog-standard 32-bit intel Linux, and any issues re. partitioning.
I'm aiming to create a raid-6 over
On Wednesday May 24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark Hahn wrote:
I just dd'ed a 700MB iso to /dev/null, dd returned 33MB/s.
Isn't that a little slow?
what bs parameter did you give to dd? it should be at least 3*chunk
(probably 3*64k if you used defaults.)
I would expect
On Wednesday May 24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I upgraded my kernel from 2.6.15.6 to 2.6.16.16 and now the 'iostat -x
1' permanently shows 100% utilisation on each disk that member of an md
array. I asked my friend who using 3 boxes with 2.6.16.2 2.6.16.9
2.6.16.11 and raid1, he's
On Monday May 22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A few simple questions about the 2.6.16+ kernel and software RAID.
Does software RAID in the 2.6.16 kernel take advantage of SMP?
Not exactly. RAID5/6 tends to use just one cpu for parity
calculations, but that frees up other cpus for doing other
On Tuesday May 23, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Neil hello.
1.
i have applied the common path according to
http://www.spinics.net/lists/raid/msg11838.html as much as i can.
Great. I look forward to seeing the results.
it looks ok in terms of throughput.
before i continue to a non common
On Monday May 22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Will it be less risky to grow an array that way?
It should be. In particular it will survive an unexpected reboot (as
long as you don't lose and drives at the same time) which I don't
think raidreconf would.
Testing results so far are quite
On Monday May 22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hi list,
I read somewhere that it would be better not to rely on the
autodetect-mechanism in the kernel at boot time, but rather to set up
/etc/mdadm.conf accordingly and boot with raid=noautodetect. Well, I
tried that :)
I set up
On Monday May 22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Good day Neil, all
if I understand right, we disable irqs in handle_stripe()
just because of using device_lock which can be grabbed
from interrupt context (_end_io functions). can we replace
it by a new separate spinlock and don't block
On Monday May 22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just dd'ed a 700MB iso to /dev/null, dd returned 33MB/s.
Isn't that a little slow?
System is a sil3114 4 port sata 1 controller with 4 samsung spinpoint 250GB,
8MB cache in raid 5 on a Athlon XP 2000+/512MB.
Yes, read on raid5 isn't as fast as
On Wednesday May 17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 11 May 2006, dean gaudet wrote:
On Tue, 14 Mar 2006, Neil Brown wrote:
On Monday March 13, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just experienced some kind of lockup accessing my 8-drive raid5
(2.6.16-rc4-mm2). The system has been up
On Sunday May 21, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Question :
What is the cost of not walking trough the raid5 code in the
case of READ ?
if i add and error handling code will it be suffice ?
Please read
http://www.spinics.net/lists/raid/msg11838.html
and ask if you have further
On Monday May 22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How will the raid5 resize in 2.6.17 be different from raidreconf?
It is done (mostly) in the kernel while the array is active, rather
than completely in user-space while the array is off-line.
Will it be less risky to grow an array that way?
It
(Please don't reply off-list. If the conversation starts on the list,
please leave it there unless there is a VERY GOOD reason).
On Monday May 22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/19/06, Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday May 19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As i can see the bitmap
On Saturday May 20, jeff@jab.org wrote:
interrupted by seeks from read requests on the RAID. But that's not
really necessary; imagine if it instead went something like:
sbb1 - sbg1# High bandwidth copy operation limited by drive speed
sb[cde]1# These guys handle read requests
On Thursday May 18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Neil,
The raid5 reshape seems to have gone smoothly (nice job!), though it
took 11 hours! Are there any pieces of info you would like about the array?
Excellent!
No, no other information would be useful.
This is the first real-life example
On Tuesday May 16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is the second revision of the effort to enable offload of MD's xor
and copy operations to dedicated hardware resources. Please comment on
the approach of this patch and whether it will be suitable to expand
this to the other areas in
On Wednesday May 17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
let me know if you want the task dump output from this one too.
No thanks - I doubt it will containing anything helpful.
I'll try to put some serious time into this next week - as soon as I
get mdadm 2.5 out.
NeilBrown
-
To unsubscribe from
On Wednesday May 17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
For Neil's benefit (:-) I'm about to test the raid5 resize code by
trying to grow our 2TB raid5 from 8 to 10 devices. Currently, I'm
running a 2.6.16-rc4-mm2 kernel. Is this current enough to support the
resize? (I suspect not.) If I
On Monday May 15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I always use entire disks if I want the entire disks raided (sounds
obvious, doesn't it...) I only use partitions when I want to vary the
raid layout for different parts of the disk (e.g. mirrored root, mirrored
swap, raid6 for the rest). But
On Monday May 15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ho hum, I give up.
Thankyou :-) I found our debate very valuable - it helped me clarify
my understanding of some areas of linux filesystem semantics (and as I
am trying to write a filesystem in my 'spare time', that will turn out
to be very useful).
On Monday May 15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've got a x86_64 system with 2 3ware 9550SX-12s, each set up as a raid5
w/ a hot spare. Over that, I do a software raid0 stripe via:
mdadm -C /dev/md0 -c 512 -l 0 -n 2 /dev/sd[bc]1
Whenever I try to format md0 (I've tried both mke2fs and
On Monday May 15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
NeilBrown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+ do_sync_file_range(file, 0, LLONG_MAX,
+ SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WRITE |
+ SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WAIT_AFTER);
That needs a SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WAIT_BEFORE
On Monday May 15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I accidentally ran mkswap on an md raid1 device which had a mounted
ext3 filesystem on it. I also did a swapon, but I don't think
anything was written to swap before I noticed the mistake. How much
of the partition is toast, and is it something
On Saturday May 13, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Clements [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
The loss of pagecache coherency seems sad. I assume there's never a
requirement for userspace to read this file.
Actually, there is. mdadm reads the bitmap file, so that
On Sunday May 14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Sonntag, 14. Mai 2006 16:50 schrieben Sie:
What do I need to do when I want to install a different distro on the
machine with a raid5 array?
Which files do I need? /etc/mdadm.conf? /etc/raittab? both?
MD doesn't need any files to
(replying to bits of several emails)
On Friday May 12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However some IO requests cannot complete until the filesystem I/O
completes, so we need to be sure that the filesystem I/O won't block
waiting for memory, or fail
On Friday May 12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
NeilBrown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
./drivers/md/bitmap.c | 115
++
hmm. I hope we're not doing any of that filesystem I/O within the context
of submit_bio() or kblockd or anything like that.
On Friday May 12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
NeilBrown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If md is asked to store a bitmap in a file, it tries to hold onto the
page cache pages for that file, manipulate them directly, and call a
cocktail of operations to write the file out. I don't believe this is
On Thursday May 11, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I'm running a raid5 system, and when I reboot my raid seems to be
failing. (One disk is set to spare and other disk seems to be oke in the
detials page but we get a INPUT/OUTPUT error when trying to mount it)
We cannot seem te find the
On Thursday May 11, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have a Linux box running redhat 7.2 We have two hardware
controllers in it with about 500gig's each. They're raid 5. We were
using a software raid to combine them all together. 1 hard drive went
down so we replaced it and now the
On Wednesday May 3, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Neil Brown wrote:
On Tuesday May 2, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
NeilBrown wrote:
The industry standard DDF format allows for a stripe/offset layout
where data is duplicated on different stripes. e.g.
A B C D
D A B C
On Monday May 8, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Good evening.
I am having a bit of a problem with a largish RAID5 set.
Now it is looking more and more like I am about to lose all the data on
it, so I am asking (begging?) to see if anyone can help me sort this out.
Very thorough description, but
On Friday May 5, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, I couldn't find a diplomatic way to say you're completely wrong.
We don't necessarily expect a diplomatic way, but a clear and
intelligent one would be helpful.
In two-disk RAID5 which is it?
1) The 'parity bit' is the same as the
On Tuesday May 2, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
NeilBrown wrote:
The industry standard DDF format allows for a stripe/offset layout
where data is duplicated on different stripes. e.g.
A B C D
D A B C
E F G H
H E F G
(columns are
-safemode_delay == 0)
+ mddev-safemode_delay = 1;
+ }
+ return len;
And most of that goes away.
Maybe it could go in a library :-?
NeilBrown
From: Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc
On Monday May 1, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
Suppose a read action on a disk which is member of a raid5 (or raid1 or any
other raid where there's data redundancy) fails.
What ahppens next is that the entire disk is marked as failed and a raid5
rebuild is initiated.
However, that
On Monday May 1, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey folks.
There's no point in using LVM on a raid5 setup if all you intend to do
in the future is resize the filesystem on it, is there? The new raid5
resizing code takes care of providing the extra space and then as long
as the say ext3 filesystem
On Friday April 28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
NeilBrown wrote:
Change ENOTSUPP to EOPNOTSUPP
Because that is what you get if a BIO_RW_BARRIER isn't supported !
Dumb question, hope someone can answer it :).
Does this mean that any version of MD up till now won't know that SATA
disks does
On Wednesday April 26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suspect I should have just kept out of this, and waited for someone like
Neil to answer authoratatively.
So...Neil, what's the right answer to Tuomas's 2 disk RAID5 question? :)
.. and a deep resounding voice from on-high spoke and in
start dirty degraded array for md0
The '-f' is meant to make this work. However it seems there is a bug.
Could you please test this patch? It isn't exactly the right fix, but
it definitely won't hurt.
Thanks,
NeilBrown
Signed-off-by: Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
### Diffstat output
./super0
On Thursday April 20, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Neil Brown wrote:
What is the rationale for your position?
My rationale was that if md layer receives *write* requests not smaller
than a full stripe size, it is able to omit reading data to update, and
can just calculate new parity from
On Thursday April 27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Neil Brown wrote:
The '-f' is meant to make this work. However it seems there is a bug.
Could you please test this patch? It isn't exactly the right fix, but
it definitely won't hurt.
Thanks, Neil, I'll give this a go when I get home
On Tuesday April 25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
Reduce the raid6_end_write_request() spinlock window.
Andrew: please don't include these in -mm. This one and the
corresponding raid5 are wrong, and I'm not sure yet the unplug_device
changes.
In this case, the call to md_error, which in
On Sunday April 23, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
to make a long story very very shorty:
a) I create /dev/md1, kernel latest rc-2-git4 and mdadm-2.4.1.tgz,
with this command:
/root/mdadm -Cv /dev/.static/dev/.static/dev/.static/dev/md1 \
501 - 600 of 975 matches
Mail list logo
