On Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 04:32:14PM -0700, Eric Jorgensen wrote:
>
My last mail to you bounced, so I'm trying again. Sorry if anyone
gets this twice...
On Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 03:41:37PM -0700, Eric Jorgensen wrote:
> Well, I tried, something seems to be wrong. I had to update raidtools to
> include the failed-disk directive. that took a while to figure out. someone
> needs to tap linuxdoc.org on the shoulder and inform them their
> software-raid-howto is painfully out of date. I'd do it myself but there are
> too many blunt objects handy.
http://ostenfeld.dk/~jakob/Software-RAID.HOWTO/ is the place for the current
0.90 software RAID howto.
> ANYway, here's what happens. Sensitive argument replaced per request.
>
> ------------
> [root@charlotte /root]# ./mkraid --truly-foolish /dev/md0
> DESTROYING the contents of /dev/md0 in 5 seconds, Ctrl-C if unsure!
> handling MD device /dev/md0
> analyzing super-block
> disk 0: /dev/sdd1, 8883913kB, raid superblock at 8883840kB
> disk 1: /dev/sde1, 8964238kB, raid superblock at 8964160kB
> disk 2: /dev/sdb1, failed
> disk 3: /dev/sdc1, 8883913kB, raid superblock at 8883840kB
> mkraid: aborted, see the syslog and /proc/mdstat for potential clues.
>
> ---------------
>
> And here's what dmesg reveals:
>
> ---------------
>
> bind<sdd1,1>
> bind<sde1,2>
> blkdev_open() failed: -19
> md: [dev 00:00] has zero size, marking faulty!
> md: error, md_import_device() returned -22
>
> ---------------
>
> And here's my raidtab. Sorry for the confusion, sdb is visually marked "4"
> on the front of the case. Longer story.
Gosh, something is just coming to my mind here... I was convinced that you
were running 0.90 RAID, since most people posting on the list are (stupid
assumptions come easy). But I guess you aren't... Right ?
You're running a kernel with standard RAID, not an -ac or raid-patched kernel I
guess... That means the new raidtools (which understand "failed-disk") will
not talk to your kernel.
I see one way out: Patch your old raidtools (version 0.42 or so ?) to
understand the failed-disk directive. This may involve manual inclusion of
some patch rejects. Maybe not. Don't know.
If I'm really right that you're running the old code, you probably want to
upgrade to 0.90 once your data are back :) The new code is stable, and the
old code isn't (you can usually crash a RAID-5 box by stressing the RAID with
the old code).
Another way out would involve upgrading your old array to the new format, using
the --upgrade switch, but I doubt that it is a very clever thing to do with the
current state of your array...
The failed-disk patch is fairly small. I guess you can apply it pretty quickly
even if it doesn't apply cleanly to the older raidtools.
--
................................................................
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] : And I see the elder races, :
:.........................: putrid forms of man :
: Jakob Østergaard : See him rise and claim the earth, :
: OZ9ABN : his downfall is at hand. :
:.........................:............{Konkhra}...............:
