On Thu, 6 Apr 2000, Martin Bene wrote:
> At 16:26 06.04.00, you wrote:
> > > raid will boot quite nicely from a standard lilo if the config file is
> > > properly set up. I have several raid1 and raid5 (with raid one boot
> > > partions) running that use standard lilo on both scsi and ide systems.
>
> Query: is /boot on a raid device that was created in degraed mode (using
> "failed-disk")? If so, you've got a problem:
In this foray into software raid I created two new devices. /dev/md0 was
created to hold / and /dev/md1 is for /boot. I created both with the
"failed-disk" option with one immediatly following the other. Then I
copied my whole system over to the new devices. I left it in failed mode,
fixed /etc/fstab and /etc/lilo.conf, ran lilo (worked fine this time with
a failed disk in the array), and rebooted. When the system came up on the
raid devices properly I fixed up the partitions on the "failed" drive and
did raidhotadd for both, it resync and I left it running. It was under
this "step" that a day later I tried to run lilo (now with both drives in
normal raid functioning) and it failed. So I guess perhaps that is the
source of the problem unless I'm misunderstanding you? It didn't occur to
me that anything would be different before and after raidhotadding
(especially after messages on this list saying it worked fine).
> a) there's a bug in mkraid that resultis in a "phantom" disk if creating
> arrays in degraded mode and
> b) there's an incongruity in the raidcode on how to count the number of
> disks in the array, which makes it impossible to query the raid status of
> the last disk in an array if there is a failed disk.
> c) there's a bunch of bugs in the lilo - raidpatch that prevents it from
> working on arrays with failed disks; the phantom disk from bug a)
> unfortunately qualifies.
>
> I've got patches for a) (fix mkraid diskcount if creating in degraded mode)
> and c) (make lilo handle failed disks correctly).
So with the fix for A) I would have to end up backing up my data and
recreating the raid-1 array anyway? I'm not opposed to doing this (in
fact, I was prepared for it if the "failed-disk" method didn't work.
If you think this will solve my problem could I get the patch(es) from you
and try it?
> b) requires a bit more thought and I don't want to do this without feedback
> from mingo - unfortunately I haven't gotten any reply whatsoever from him
> so far; tried several times.
On my array I have a raid-5 array setup at /dev/md3 that already existed
before I did any of this. However, all the drives in that array are at
the "beginning" according to the way linux assigns the device names. My
/dev/md0 and /dev/md1 are on the last two drives (as linux labeling goes).
So would the "last disk" be /dev/md3 because it's the last md device or
/dev/md(0|1) since it has the last physical disk?
(note: no, there is no /dev/md2 currently)
Thanks for the help :)
Sean
>
> Bye, martin
>
> "you have moved your mouse, please reboot to make this change take effect"
> --------------------------------------------------
> Martin Bene vox: +43-316-813824
> simon media fax: +43-316-813824-6
> Andreas-Hofer-Platz 9 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 8010 Graz, Austria
> --------------------------------------------------
> finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP public key
>
