I am running 2.2.12. What I don't understand is if both md0 and md1 are
kicked out, why am I still able to use md2. I can read information
without any problems at this point. That seems strange.
Also, I'm still unclear on *which* drive specifically caused the error.
Will recreating the mirror device, md2, cause any data loss?
Reason I'm not running raid 5 is because I was under the impression that
with this configuration, a raid 1/0 config, I was providing more
redundency with the advantages of a stripped array for performance. Can
you give me reasons why raid 5 would be better other then retaining more
available space. My goal isn't necessarily space, but more for
redundency.
Thank you very much for your help!
-jeremy
> Reading your messages.txt, it turns out you don't have a faulty disk, rather
> that something was causing reads to be requested beyond the end of the disk.
> Raid doesn't currently deal with this so well, as it will end up kicking out
> the drive that "should" be responsible for this block. So md2 ends up
> kicking out both md0 and md1 for not being able to service these requests.
>
> If this is happening while the system is running, you're likely not running
> 2.2.12. There were some file system corruption problems that acted like
> this in some recent kernels (2.2.9 - 2.2.11 ? I can't remember exactly). If
> you are running 2.2.12 and these happen after a good amount of uptime... you
> want to look at other possible corruption sources in your system... disks or
> memory corrupting, etc.
>
> If this happens at e2fsck, likely your disk was scrambled to the point of
> having seriously bad data in the superblock. Calling e2fsck with an
> alternate superblock farther into the disk set may cure this.
>
> As it's already "down", you'll need to fix md2 before you can continue your
> work. To fix this, stop md2 but leave md0 and md1 running, and run
> 'mkraid -force /dev/md2'
>
> Looking at your setup, I'm confused as to why you aren't simply running one
> raid5 set on all six disks. It would certainly reduce complexity in
> situations like this, and would leave you with more usable space.
>
> Tom
>
http://www.xxedgexx.com | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------
Y2K. We're all gonna die.
