On Friday October 19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/19/07, Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday October 19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm using a stock 2.6.19.7 that I then backported various MD fixes to
from 2.6.20 - 2.6.23... this kernel has worked great until I
attempted
On 10/22/07, Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday October 19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/19/07, Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday October 19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm using a stock 2.6.19.7 that I then backported various MD fixes to
from 2.6.20 -
On Monday October 22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey Neil,
Your fix works for me too. However, I'm wondering why you held back
on fixing the same issue in the bitmap runs into data comparison
that follows:
It isn't really needed here. In this case bitmap-offset is positive,
so all the
On 10/19/07, Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday October 19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm using a stock 2.6.19.7 that I then backported various MD fixes to
from 2.6.20 - 2.6.23... this kernel has worked great until I
attempted v1.0 sb w/ bitmap=internal using mdadm 2.6.x.
On 10/18/07, Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday October 17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
mdadm 2.4.1 through 2.5.6 works. mdadm-2.6's Improve allocation and
use of space for bitmaps in version1 metadata
(199171a297a87d7696b6b8c07ee520363f4603c1) would seem like the
offending
Mike Snitzer wrote:
On 10/17/07, Bill Davidsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mike Snitzer wrote:
mdadm 2.4.1 through 2.5.6 works. mdadm-2.6's Improve allocation and
use of space for bitmaps in version1 metadata
(199171a297a87d7696b6b8c07ee520363f4603c1) would seem like the
offending change.
On Friday October 19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To further test this I used 2 local sparse 732456960K loopback devices
and attempted to create the raid1 in the same manner. It failed in
exactly the same way. This should cast further doubt on the bad block
theory no?
Yes :-)
I'm using a
On 10/18/07, Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, I wasn't paying close enough attention and missed the obvious.
.
On Thursday October 18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/18/07, Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday October 17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
mdadm 2.4.1
Neil Brown wrote:
On Thursday October 18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unless there's a substantial benefit from using the 1.0 format, you
might want to go with something which works.
I am every grateful to the many people who do not just find work
arounds, but report problems and
On Thursday October 18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unless there's a substantial benefit from using the 1.0 format, you
might want to go with something which works.
I am every grateful to the many people who do not just find work
arounds, but report problems and persist until they get fixed.
Sorry, I wasn't paying close enough attention and missed the obvious.
.
On Thursday October 18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/18/07, Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday October 17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
mdadm 2.4.1 through 2.5.6 works. mdadm-2.6's Improve allocation
On 10/19/07, Mike Snitzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/18/07, Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, I wasn't paying close enough attention and missed the obvious.
.
On Thursday October 18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/18/07, Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On
mdadm 2.4.1 through 2.5.6 works. mdadm-2.6's Improve allocation and
use of space for bitmaps in version1 metadata
(199171a297a87d7696b6b8c07ee520363f4603c1) would seem like the
offending change. Using 1.2 metdata works.
I get the following using the tip of the mdadm git repo or any other
version
Mike Snitzer wrote:
mdadm 2.4.1 through 2.5.6 works. mdadm-2.6's Improve allocation and
use of space for bitmaps in version1 metadata
(199171a297a87d7696b6b8c07ee520363f4603c1) would seem like the
offending change. Using 1.2 metdata works.
I get the following using the tip of the mdadm git
On 10/17/07, Bill Davidsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mike Snitzer wrote:
mdadm 2.4.1 through 2.5.6 works. mdadm-2.6's Improve allocation and
use of space for bitmaps in version1 metadata
(199171a297a87d7696b6b8c07ee520363f4603c1) would seem like the
offending change. Using 1.2 metdata
On Wednesday October 17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
mdadm 2.4.1 through 2.5.6 works. mdadm-2.6's Improve allocation and
use of space for bitmaps in version1 metadata
(199171a297a87d7696b6b8c07ee520363f4603c1) would seem like the
offending change. Using 1.2 metdata works.
I get the following
16 matches
Mail list logo
