How sure are we that this problem is not present in 2.6 version? If its confirmed, then we could ask for an upgrade to mdadm. Its really hard to convince to a major upgrade at the RC stage.
Thanks Aristo On 2/22/07, Lasse Kliemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > * Matthias Šubik writes: > > Did you fill in a bug report at > > http://bugs.trustix.org ?? > > No, not yet; I was not aware of this possibility. Unfortunately, right now > this URL is not reachable. I will try again later. Or are there > alternatives? > I'd very much like to get this fixed before the 3.0.5 final release. > > Lasse > > > > > > On 22.02.2007, at 00:00, Lasse Kliemann wrote: > > > > > Greetings, > > > > > > I ran into serious trouble creating a RAID-5 with the latest 3.0.5 > > > betas and > > > release candidates. The symptom is that directly after the creation > > > of the > > > array, there is a 'removed' device. The output of ``mdadm -D'' is > > > like this: > > > > > > Number Major Minor RaidDevice State > > > 0 8 5 0 active sync /dev/sda5 > > > 1 8 21 1 active sync /dev/sdb5 > > > 2 0 0 2 removed > > > > > > 3 8 37 3 active sync /dev/sdc5 > > > > > > Furthermore, the array does not function properly, e.g., it > > > misbehaves when a > > > redundant drive is disconnected. > > > > > > I found no prior documentation of such a problem, and I did not get > > > any > > > responses to my posts on Usenet about it. Left to trial-and-error, > > > I found > > > out that this problem does not exist with the latest version of > > > mdadm, which > > > is version 2.6. Trustix uses 2.5. > > > > > > I hence suggest updating mdadm to version 2.6. > > _______________________________________________ > tsl-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.trustix.org/mailman/listinfo/tsl-discuss > > -- Thanks and Regards Aristo Mob # +91 9980089699 Registered Linux User #415170 _______________________________________________ tsl-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.trustix.org/mailman/listinfo/tsl-discuss
