i think that redhat 5.2 made some premature assumptions about raid
setups.
i would recommend that you "grep raidadd /etc/rc.d/rc.sysinit"
they are attempting to start your raid using the old tools (i think,
correct if wrong) you prob want to do a "find / -name "*raid*"", or an
rpm -qa |grep raid
if there is an old version of raid tools loaded by 5.2, rpm -e raidtools
i could be mistaken as i have not loaded 5.2 (no reason to as i can see)
allan noah
Mike Brodbelt wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm having a little difficulty setting up a new raid system. I'm mostly
> following
> the instructions m. allan noah posted to this list a few days ago. Anyway, this
> is
> what's happening.
>
> Completely new system, no previous operating system installed at all. System
> spec is:-
>
> P-II 400
> Asus P2B motherboard
> 128Mb RAM
> 3 * IBM 4.5 Gb UW SCSI drives (ultrastar)
> 1 10Gb IDE drive
>
> Set up, by installing RedHat 5.2 onto the IDE drive, then removing the kernel
> source,
> and replacing with a clean 2.0.35 source tree. Patched this with
> raid0145-981110-2.0.35.gz,
> and recompiled for raid support, with all personalities, and autostart support
> enabled.
>
> Then, compiled raidtools-19981105-0.80.tar.gz (no problems), and partitioned all
> 3
> of the SCSI disks identically. Changed partition types to fd, and ran mkraid on
> the
> partiitions, with no problem. Put an ext2 file system on the md devices, and at
> this
> stage I could mount the raid devices without any trouble.
>
> Then rebooted. At boot time, the system recognises the raid arrays, and attempts
> to auto start them. The system then complains that raidadd used an obsolete md
> ioctl, and the version of the raid tools should be upgraded. The system then
> drops
> you into single user mode.
>
> At this stage, cat /proc/mdstat shows that all raid devices are running, so they
> were obviously autostarted successfully. I'm sure there's a simple solution to
> this,
> can someone give me a couple of pointers... Oh, and is there any up to date raid
> docs anywhere around yet?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike.
