I'm running right now the latest patches as well and I still have this read only problem and its on 3 machines each with a slightly different setup but the same. One of my machines has its swap partition on a raid 5 actually and it also suffers the same problem. Please keep us posted if you find anything out.
Thanks, - Jake On 10/11/07, Moby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is your swap raid still stuck in read-only mode? > Yes, it is weird that resume= causes a lock on the array in 10.3 but not > in 10.2. I am pretty sure it is a bug, possibly in the swsup (I think) > utility that handles hibernation etc. I am going to see if I can setup > a test machine and replicate the problem consistently with all the > latest patches (including the kernel update for 10.3). > > Regards, > --MOby > > Jake Conk wrote: > > What's weird is I was just looking at my last 10.2 machine that I need > > to upgrade to 10.3 and I was looking at the grub configuration and it > > also has "resume=/dev/md1" (which is the swap partition). I don't know > > why it would work in 10.1 and 10.2 (no idea about 10.0) but now we > > must change this in 10.3 in order to get swap on raid 1 or raid 5 > > working with mdadm unless we choose raid 0. I wonder if this is a bug > > or something and we should send it to SuSE somehow if it is. > > > > Regards, > > - Jake > > > > > > On 10/9/07, Moby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Richard Creighton wrote: > >> > >>> Jake Conk wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> Moby, > >>>> > >>>> THANKS!!!!!! That fixed my problem! Yes I don't know why people insist > >>>> swap should be on raid 0 other that performance reasons but if your > >>>> disk goes belly up then yeah your totally screwed. Anyways I'm glad I > >>>> didn't have to go raid 0 in order to fix this problem and now it works > >>>> my 10.3, very sweet thank you very much :) > >>>> > >>>> Regards, > >>>> - Jake > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> I can't say I insist that RAID 0 for swap is safer in case of > >>> malfunction, only that performance is improved and of course you get > >>> twice the space over raid 1 and with Linux's ability to mkswap in other > >>> partitions in an emergency, either when you run short or if the array > >>> poops, you aren't really as exposed as you might think, IMO. But, > >>> either way, I'm glad you got it going and I'll remember the 'resume' > >>> trick for the future...Thanks Moby... The way many of us divide up our > >>> physical drives to make up multiple raid arrays, if my swap partition > >>> were to fail, it is likely that I have also lost a drive, which has > >>> compromised my other raid arrays, so I have a lot of work to do, and > >>> worrying about loss of swap space is the least of my problems :) FWIW, > >>> I have 3 G of RAM and I rarely use any swap on disk, so my exposure is > >>> somewhat minimal I would expect. That and the general reliability of > >>> disk drives now days and I figure I have at least a few weeks of > >>> relatively uneventful computing due to hardware failure ahead....now, > >>> 10.3 GM is another story :) > >>> > >>> Richard > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> On 10/9/07, Moby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Jake Conk wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> Well the reason why I didn't make it raid 0 because if one of the > >>>>>> disks were to go bad then my whole raid would go down right? Can you > >>>>>> give me the steps on how to make my md1 device a raid 0 without > >>>>>> reformatting my whole system? I don't think I can stop md1 unless I > >>>>>> stop all the md devices above it right? (md2/3/4/5) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>> - Jake > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 10/9/07, Richard Creighton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Jake Conk wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hello, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I tried to setup a fresh install of 10.3 with 2 disks and I used YaST > >>>>>>>> to mirror all my partitions. I had originally my raid swap partitions > >>>>>>>> on an extended partition but that didn't work and I thought that was > >>>>>>>> the problem so instead now I put the raid partitions on primary > >>>>>>>> partitions, which still doesn't work. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Any suggestions would be appreciated because I'm completely stumped, > >>>>>>>> I > >>>>>>>> can't figure out for the life of mine why my swap partition won't > >>>>>>>> work. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I think I would try making your swap partition RAID 0 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I have MD0 /boot Raid1 > >>>>>>> MD1 swap Raid 0 > >>>>>>> MD2 / (root) Raid 1 > >>>>>>> MD3 /home Raid 5 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> and it works well with both 10.2 and 10.3. There is no advantage to > >>>>>>> using raid1 with swap anyhow, you really don't need it to be backed up > >>>>>>> or duplicated and it just slows the system down even if it did work. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>> > >> Most welcome Jake and Richard. > >> Richard, my apologies if I sounded a bit harsh - just my frustration > >> showing on having fought the very same issue for too many hours today > >> before finding the fix. As for swap on RAID1 - well, raid'ing any disk > >> has pros and cons. The machine I was fighting the very same issue on > >> today is almost guaranteed to swap once it goes live, and I need to have > >> it able to run until I can get around to fixing it should a disk go bad > >> - hence the decision to put swap (and everything else) on RAID. > >> > >> -- > >> --Moby > >> > >> They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary > >> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin > >> > >> > >> -- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > --Moby > > They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety > deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin > > First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. > Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a > Communist. > Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was > not a trade unionist. > Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me. -- > Pastor Martin Niemöller > >
