*sigh* raidtools on the system in question reports that it is V0.90. Well,
specifically --
-------------
[root@charlotte /]# /sbin/raidstart --version
/sbin/raidstart v0.3d compiled for md raidtools-0.90
-------------
- Eric
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jakob Østergaard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, December 17, 1999 6:34 PM
> To: Eric Jorgensen
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: FW: Ugh . . .
>
>
> 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 software-raid-howto is painfully out of date.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}...............:
>
