Re: RAID under 2.2.10
Fred Reimer wrote: > > On Tue, 06 Jul 1999, Christoph Martin wrote: > > You can apply the 2.2.6 patches to 2.2.10. But it is not working > > correctly. Normal operation is ok, but if a raid comes out of sync and > > need a resync (like when you reboot without a proper shutdown), this > > would fail. > > > > I have a 2.2.10 with 2.2.6 raid patches running at the moment, because > > I need 2.2.10 to get Informix IDS running. But when the machine > > crashed I had to boot my old 2.2.6 to get the rebuild done and then > > reboot with 2.2.10 for Informix. > > > > Ingo Molnar talked about working on the patches for 2.2.10 and that he > > fixed the problem with resync, but he did not yet release the code. > > > > Christoph > > So > > If you're only using RAID0, which you can not rebuild and has no > syncing, then the 2.2.6 patches applied to 2.2.10 provide tested, > production quality RAID? > > I will take a backup before proceeding, but I would also like to get > concensus from linux-raid participants and particularly Ingo... Well, if it helps, I've been running RAID0 with said patch on 2.2.10 for quite a while now. (knock on wood). Even when having to powercycle the machine without a proper shutdown.
Re: RAID under 2.2.10
> > You can apply the 2.2.6 patches to 2.2.10. But it is not working > > correctly. Normal operation is ok, but if a raid comes out of sync and > > need a resync (like when you reboot without a proper shutdown), this > > would fail. This doesn't in fact have anything to do with RAID0, and anyway, the one liner patch has been posted to the list... > I will take a backup before proceeding, but I would also like to get > concensus from linux-raid participants and particularly Ingo... I think it's not quite 'production' but that may be because of generic bugs in linux-2.2.10 or in the raid code, which IMHO is ALMOST but not quite production quality. I run raid0 against 2.2.9, and the system is still running since I first booted. However, I have gotten two oopses accessing the RAID0 which resulted in: 1) the accessing process crashed or 2) the accessing process hung in 'D' state That being said, I have HEAVILY pounded the volume for a month, and this is the sum total of my problems. The performance is great, but not perfectly stable. For my purposes, I can live with it until the powers that be stomp the last critters out. N.B. There is a supposed lingering bug in the vanilla 2.2.10 kernel that hasn't been tracked down yet w.r.t filesystem corruption, or invalid block accesses, so that could be the root of all evil here, but at worst adds to the problems... David -- /==\ | David Mansfield | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | \==/
Re: RAID under 2.2.10
Surely tested, but "production quality" depends on your application. I don't believe it has been described by the developers as "Production Quality" "but your mileage may vary".. James On Wed, 7 Jul 1999, Fred Reimer wrote: > On Tue, 06 Jul 1999, Christoph Martin wrote: > > You can apply the 2.2.6 patches to 2.2.10. But it is not working > > correctly. Normal operation is ok, but if a raid comes out of sync and > > need a resync (like when you reboot without a proper shutdown), this > > would fail. > > > > I have a 2.2.10 with 2.2.6 raid patches running at the moment, because > > I need 2.2.10 to get Informix IDS running. But when the machine > > crashed I had to boot my old 2.2.6 to get the rebuild done and then > > reboot with 2.2.10 for Informix. > > > > Ingo Molnar talked about working on the patches for 2.2.10 and that he > > fixed the problem with resync, but he did not yet release the code. > > > > Christoph > > So > > If you're only using RAID0, which you can not rebuild and has no > syncing, then the 2.2.6 patches applied to 2.2.10 provide tested, > production quality RAID? > > I will take a backup before proceeding, but I would also like to get > concensus from linux-raid participants and particularly Ingo... > > Fred > A.J. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Sometimes you're ahead, somtimes you're behind. The race is long, and in the end it's only with yourself.
Re: RAID under 2.2.10
On Tue, 06 Jul 1999, Christoph Martin wrote: > You can apply the 2.2.6 patches to 2.2.10. But it is not working > correctly. Normal operation is ok, but if a raid comes out of sync and > need a resync (like when you reboot without a proper shutdown), this > would fail. > > I have a 2.2.10 with 2.2.6 raid patches running at the moment, because > I need 2.2.10 to get Informix IDS running. But when the machine > crashed I had to boot my old 2.2.6 to get the rebuild done and then > reboot with 2.2.10 for Informix. > > Ingo Molnar talked about working on the patches for 2.2.10 and that he > fixed the problem with resync, but he did not yet release the code. > > Christoph So If you're only using RAID0, which you can not rebuild and has no syncing, then the 2.2.6 patches applied to 2.2.10 provide tested, production quality RAID? I will take a backup before proceeding, but I would also like to get concensus from linux-raid participants and particularly Ingo... Fred
Re: RAID under 2.2.10
That would be a good idea, if there is a problem with 2.2.10 then confusing it with raid isn't ideal I don't think people understood my previous message which appears to have started this thread... I was only really wanting more information about the development status rather than rushing release! On Tue, 6 Jul 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Christoph Martin wrote: > > Ingo Molnar talked about working on the patches for 2.2.10 and that he > > fixed the problem with resync, but he did not yet release the code. > > Perhaps he is "waiting" for the fs-corruption bug in 2.2.10 to go away? > > René > A.J. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Sometimes you're ahead, somtimes you're behind. The race is long, and in the end it's only with yourself.
Re: RAID under 2.2.10
Christoph Martin wrote: > Ingo Molnar talked about working on the patches for 2.2.10 and that he > fixed the problem with resync, but he did not yet release the code. Perhaps he is "waiting" for the fs-corruption bug in 2.2.10 to go away? René
Re: RAID under 2.2.10
Robert Stuart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I'm wanting to use the latest kernel with raid patches and I'm new to > the mailing list... Is raid with 2.2.10 a matter of applying the 2.2.6 > raid patches, and adding that code above? What are the "AC" patches? > Is the fix in the second paragraph above required? > > What are good sites for raid info - can I find digests of this list > anywhere? > You can apply the 2.2.6 patches to 2.2.10. But it is not working correctly. Normal operation is ok, but if a raid comes out of sync and need a resync (like when you reboot without a proper shutdown), this would fail. I have a 2.2.10 with 2.2.6 raid patches running at the moment, because I need 2.2.10 to get Informix IDS running. But when the machine crashed I had to boot my old 2.2.6 to get the rebuild done and then reboot with 2.2.10 for Informix. Ingo Molnar talked about working on the patches for 2.2.10 and that he fixed the problem with resync, but he did not yet release the code. Christoph -- Christoph Martin, Uni-Mainz, Germany Internet-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --export-a-crypto-system-sig -RSA-3-lines-PERL-- #!/usr/bin/perl -sp0777ihttp://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/
Re: RAID under 2.2.10
John E. Adams wrote:
>
> >> Tom Livingston wrote:
> >>
> >>> As others have pointed out recently on this list, you can get raid working
> >>> with a 2.2.10 kernel. Ingo posted a fix, which involves changing just one
> >>> line.
> >>
> >> I wrote:
> >> The fix is only one line, BUT that one line occurs TWICE. Change both
> >> occurrences of 'current->priority = 0' to 'current->priority = 1'
> >> in /usr/src/linux/drivers/block/md.c. Ideally, that constant should
> >> have a symbolic name like LOWEST_PRIORITY.
> >>
> > Christopher E. Browne wrote:
> > So if I am distilling the correct data here, one patches 2.2.1
> > with the latest 2.2.6 raid patch, ignores the rejects, and cheges
> > those to lines and then has a working raid system?
> > Are there and issues with the AC patches?
>
> Mostly correct. The 2.2.6 patch fails against linux/include/linux/fs.h
> The following code, which is the failing piece, needs to be added to fs.h
>
> static inline int buffer_lowprio(struct buffer_head * bh)
> {
> return test_bit(BH_LowPrio, &bh->b_state);
> }
>
> I don't know about AC patches, I no longer apply them.
>
> johna
I'm wanting to use the latest kernel with raid patches and I'm new to
the mailing list... Is raid with 2.2.10 a matter of applying the 2.2.6
raid patches, and adding that code above? What are the "AC" patches?
Is the fix in the second paragraph above required?
What are good sites for raid info - can I find digests of this list
anywhere?
Thanks for your help.
--
Robert Stuart
Ph 61-7-3864 0364
Re: RAID under 2.2.10
John E. Adams wrote/schrieb/scribsit: > > Christopher E. Browne wrote: > > So if I am distilling the correct data here, one patches 2.2.1 > > with the latest 2.2.6 raid patch, ignores the rejects, and cheges > > those to lines and then has a working raid system? Yes, that's how it works for me. > > Are there and issues with the AC patches? > > I don't know about AC patches, I no longer apply them. ac patches now have LVM built in. The raid-2.2.6 patch applied to 2.2.10ac4 (IIRC) no worse than to vanilla 2.2.10 and it compiled fine at least. I did not touch CONFIG_MD_LVM, though (neither of them). Stefan
Re: RAID under 2.2.10
>> Tom Livingston wrote:
>>
>>> As others have pointed out recently on this list, you can get raid working
>>> with a 2.2.10 kernel. Ingo posted a fix, which involves changing just one
>>> line.
>>
>> I wrote:
>> The fix is only one line, BUT that one line occurs TWICE. Change both
>> occurrences of 'current->priority = 0' to 'current->priority = 1'
>> in /usr/src/linux/drivers/block/md.c. Ideally, that constant should
>> have a symbolic name like LOWEST_PRIORITY.
>>
> Christopher E. Browne wrote:
> So if I am distilling the correct data here, one patches 2.2.1
> with the latest 2.2.6 raid patch, ignores the rejects, and cheges
> those to lines and then has a working raid system?
> Are there and issues with the AC patches?
Mostly correct. The 2.2.6 patch fails against linux/include/linux/fs.h
The following code, which is the failing piece, needs to be added to fs.h
static inline int buffer_lowprio(struct buffer_head * bh)
{
return test_bit(BH_LowPrio, &bh->b_state);
}
I don't know about AC patches, I no longer apply them.
johna
Re: RAID under 2.2.10
On Sun, 4 Jul 1999, John E. Adams wrote: > Tom Livingston wrote: > > >As others have pointed out recently on this list, you can get raid working > >with a 2.2.10 kernel. Ingo posted a fix, which involves changing just one > >line. > > The fix is only one line, BUT that one line occurs TWICE. Change both > occurrences of 'current->priority = 0' to 'current->priority = 1' > in /usr/src/linux/drivers/block/md.c. Ideally, that constant should > have a symbolic name like LOWEST_PRIORITY. > > johna So if I am distilling the correct data here, one patches 2.2.1 with the latest 2.2.6 raid patch, ignores the rejects, and cheges those to lines and then has a working raid system? Are there and issues with the AC patches? First Law of System Requirements: "Anything is possible if you don't know what you're talking about..."
