/sdc) have only one raid partition
> each and were used by mdadm to create a software raid array
> (/dev/md0).
>
> I keep getting Kernel Panic whenever I try mkfs.ext2(3|4):
> mkfs.ext2 /dev/md0.
>
> I googled it, but most of the kernel panic pages refers to boot
Hi,
I have a fresh Debian Lenny Box with three Sata Disks (250GB and 2 X 500GB).
"/" is mounted on the first disk (/dev/sda) outside any raid array.
The other disks (/dev/sdb and /dev/sdc) have only one raid partition
each and were used by mdadm to create a software raid array
(/de
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
On Sunday 2008 December 21 15:00:44 Alex Samad wrote:
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 03:44:04AM -0600, M.Lewis wrote:
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
On Sunday 21 December 2008, "M.Lewis" wrote about
'Re: e2fsck /dev/md0 issues':
Maybe what I sh
On Sunday 2008 December 21 15:00:44 Alex Samad wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 03:44:04AM -0600, M.Lewis wrote:
> > Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> >> On Sunday 21 December 2008, "M.Lewis" wrote about
> >> 'Re: e2fsck /dev/md0 issues':
> >&
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 03:44:04AM -0600, M.Lewis wrote:
>
> Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>> On Sunday 21 December 2008, "M.Lewis" wrote about
>> 'Re: e2fsck /dev/md0 issues':
>>> Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe what I sho
ve these errors though. I'm not sure if it matters, but LVM is not
> installed on /dev/md0.
>
> I've tried all the possible (I think) combinations of 'e2fsck -b x
> /dev/md0' with no luck at all. Google searches have not yet produced
> anything that has seemed
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
On Sunday 21 December 2008, "M.Lewis" wrote about 'Re:
e2fsck /dev/md0 issues':
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
Maybe what I should do is break the array and start over? Making sure
that e2fsck on both drives is good to go beforehand of cour
On Sunday 21 December 2008, "M.Lewis" wrote about 'Re:
e2fsck /dev/md0 issues':
>Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>> I assume that /dev/md0 knows it's size, so the filesystem superblock is
>> bad and you should correct it by resizing the filesystem.
>
&g
^
The physical size of the device is 244189984 blocks
^
24419 > 244189984. You need to resize your filesystem to actually
fit on /dev/md0.
Disk /dev/sda: 1000.2 GB, 1000204886016 bytes
Disk /dev/sdb: 1000.2 GB, 1000204886016 bytes
s 24419 blocks
> >
> >^
> >
> >> The physical size of the device is 244189984 blocks
> >
> > ^
> >
> > 24419 > 244189984. You need to resize your filesystem to actually
> > fit on /dev/md0.
>
> Dis
^
24419 > 244189984. You need to resize your filesystem to actually fit
on /dev/md0.
Disk /dev/sda: 1000.2 GB, 1000204886016 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 121601 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
Disk identifier: 0x6c53e0bd
Dev
blocks
^
24419 > 244189984. You need to resize your filesystem to actually fit
on /dev/md0.
--
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =.
b...@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-'
http:
s not
installed on /dev/md0.
I've tried all the possible (I think) combinations of 'e2fsck -b x
/dev/md0' with no luck at all. Google searches have not yet produced
anything that has seemed to help.
rattler:~# e2fsck /dev/md0
e2fsck 1.41.3 (12-Oct-2008)
The filesystem size (accordi
Christofer C. Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 10:45 PM, s. keeling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi. I've been fiddling with a RAID5 on usb pendrives plugged into usb
>
> Your system has a raid5 array configured as /dev/md0 containing disks
a raid5 array configured as /dev/md0 containing disks
sda, sdb, and sdc. Your sdb disk has failed. This is pretty
explicitly stated in the error message:
"A Fail event had been detected on md device /dev/md0.
It could be related to component device /dev/sdb1."
--
Chris
--
To UNS
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Fail event on /dev/md0:phreaque
> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 21:16:43 -0600
> X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.00, version=1.1.3
>
> This is an automatically generated mail message from mdadm
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 01:35:03AM -0400, Mitchell Laks wrote:
> Thank you all for this very informative thread.
>
> So it seems that running
> blkid
> is the answer
> insofar as it tells me the information I need.
>
> I wonder: does this also work for lvm managed partitions?
??
this is an e
Thank you all for this very informative thread.
So it seems that running
blkid
is the answer
insofar as it tells me the information I need.
I wonder: does this also work for lvm managed partitions?
(an idea that seemed to be vetted but not concluded by the above
thread posters.)
Mitchell
-
t;
>> here is the output of blkid (which i believe is used to make up the links
>> in /dev/disk/by-uuid)
>> blkid | grep md1
>> /dev/md1: LABEL="/" UUID="ec3e3537-4e36-443e-8132-5b0f03dd0978"
>> SEC_TYPE="ext2" TYPE="ext3"
&
37-4e36-443e-8132-5b0f03dd0978"
SEC_TYPE="ext2" TYPE="ext3"
so if i wanted to mount my / partition (/dev/md0 is /boot), then I could
put
UUID=ec3e3537-4e36-443e-8132-5b0f03dd0978 / auto .. in my fstab file
Alex
Alex,
I think you have it, though I can't explain th
On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 10:27:43AM -0400, Damon L. Chesser wrote:
> Alex Samad wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 11:08:11PM -0400, Mitchell Laks wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
[snip]
>>
> I looked at tune2fs -l /dev/md0:
> Filesystem UUID: d3bb5b
Alex Samad wrote:
On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 11:08:11PM -0400, Mitchell Laks wrote:
Hi,
Someone recently talked about using
ls -l /dev/disk/by-uuid
to figure out the correct UUID to put into /etc/fstab
for hard drives.
I have /home on a raid1 /dev/md0 which is composed of two drive
On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 11:08:11PM -0400, Mitchell Laks wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Someone recently talked about using
> ls -l /dev/disk/by-uuid
>
> to figure out the correct UUID to put into /etc/fstab
> for hard drives.
>
> I have /home on a raid1 /dev/md0 which is compo
also sprach Mitchell Laks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.04.09.0508 +0200]:
> Someone recently talked about using ls -l /dev/disk/by-uuid
>
> to figure out the correct UUID to put into /etc/fstab for hard
> drives.
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=435983
--
.''`. martin f. krafft
/dev/sdb1.
> >
> > What is the UUID for the raid1 itself?
>
>
> Doesn't matter. The raid subsystem will search all disks for raid
> members irrespective of /dev name when it reassembles the raid on boot.
> /dev/md0 will always be /dev/md0 and not /dev/md3 or somet
On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 11:08:11PM -0400, Mitchell Laks wrote:
> ls -l /dev/disk/by-uuid
> So that must be the UUID for the individual /dev/sda1 and /dev/sdb1.
> What is the UUID for the raid1 itself?
Perhaps blkid might help
(at lest it works for me, and my machines do NON use udev and do NOT
ha
stem will search all disks for raid
members irrespective of /dev name when it reassembles the raid on boot.
/dev/md0 will always be /dev/md0 and not /dev/md3 or something.
FYI, LVM is the same way, only its /dev/mapper...
Doug.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of &q
Hi,
Someone recently talked about using
ls -l /dev/disk/by-uuid
to figure out the correct UUID to put into /etc/fstab
for hard drives.
I have /home on a raid1 /dev/md0 which is composed of two drive partitions
/dev/sda1
/dev/sdb1
Now in /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf
I have:
ARRAY /dev/md0 level
also sprach Andrea Ganduglia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.12.12.1231 +0100]:
> Are you sure? I think that the problem do not depend by
> sd{c,d,e,f} but by sd{a,b}. Please: look mdadm -E output from
> previous messages.
I am not sure what the problem is. Thus I am trying to work through
various possi
On 12/12/06, martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
also sprach Andrea Ganduglia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.12.07.1225 +0100]:
> Surely I must add sdd, sde and sdf, but my problem is another: If
> I add those partitions (sdc included) after reboot /dev/md0 lost
> inform
also sprach Andrea Ganduglia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.12.07.1225 +0100]:
> Surely I must add sdd, sde and sdf, but my problem is another: If
> I add those partitions (sdc included) after reboot /dev/md0 lost
> information about them, and it shows raid schema with two working
> d
On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 09:33 +0100, Andrea Ganduglia wrote:
>
> Surely I must add sdd, sde and sdf, but my problem is another: If I
> add those partitions (sdc
> included) after reboot /dev/md0 lost information about them, and it
> shows raid schema with two
> working disk
On 12/11/06, michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Perhaps partitions from sdd and sde need to be re-added as well?
Surely I must add sdd, sde and sdf, but my problem is another: If I
add those partitions (sdc
included) after reboot /dev/md0 lost information about them, and it
shows raid
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 08:56:39 +0100, Andrea Ganduglia wrote
>
> pro:~# mdadm --detail --scan
> ARRAY /dev/md1 level=raid5 num-devices=5 spares=1
> UUID=04a39ca8:0f07922a:5eb2e3a1:851b13b9
>devices=/dev/sda2,/dev/sdf2,/dev/sdd2,/dev/sdc2,/dev/sde2,
> /dev/sdb2
> ARRAY /de
e to /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf ?
There are important differences
pro:~# mdadm --add /dev/md0 /dev/sdc1
pro:~# cat /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf
DEVICE partitions
ARRAY /dev/md1 level=raid5 num-devices=5 spares=1
UUID=04a39ca8:0f07922a:5eb2e3a1:851b13b9
devices=/dev/sda2,/dev/sdb2,/dev/sdc2,/dev/sdd2,/dev/sde2,
On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 12:25:40 +0100, Andrea Ganduglia wrote
>
> In some way /dev/sda1 and /dev/sdb1 lost information about --add
> option after any reboot. :-(
After you add your partition,
how does mdadm --detail --scan compare to /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf ?
Mike
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
On 12/7/06, martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
also sprach Andrea Ganduglia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.12.07.1432 +0400]:
> How can I fix superblocks informations? Consider that /dev/md0 is
> mounted on root partitions (/).
mdadm --add /dev/md0 /dev/sd[cde]1
should wor
also sprach Andrea Ganduglia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.12.07.1432 +0400]:
> How can I fix superblocks informations? Consider that /dev/md0 is
> mounted on root partitions (/).
mdadm --add /dev/md0 /dev/sd[cde]1
should work. Your components got bumped from the array after they
were m
disk and I report below
divergencies. As you see /dev/sd{c,d,e,f}1 look all active devices on /dev/md0,
instead /dev/sd{a,b}1 look only two devices at same raid.
Summary:
/dev/sd{a,b}1 looks 2 working devices and 3 failed devices
/dev/sd{c,d,e}1 looks 5 working devices and 0 failed devices
/dev/sd
also sprach Andrea Ganduglia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.12.07.1249 +0400]:
> md0 : active raid1 sda1[0] sdb1[1]
> 29294400 blocks [5/2] [UU___]
I am led to believe that there must be some outdated information in
the superblocks. Can you please post the output of
mdadm -E /dev/sd[acde]1
, o
On 12/7/06, martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
also sprach Andrea Ganduglia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.12.05.1557 +0400]:
> But if I do this command onto RAID1 it said that md0 is still in use
> (sure! is root's partition!). If I add manually others disk (mdadm
>
also sprach Andrea Ganduglia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.12.05.1557 +0400]:
> But if I do this command onto RAID1 it said that md0 is still in use
> (sure! is root's partition!). If I add manually others disk (mdadm
> --add /dev/md0 /dev/sdc1) it works, but on reboot only sda1
controller, and leave from /etc/fstab RAID5 references
(preserving data).
Now, I have change PCI SATA controller and it works perfetly, but
/dev/md0 (RAID1) do not start correctly.
For resync and active RAID5 I done:
~# mdadm --assemble --scan /dev/md1
But if I do this command onto RAID1 it said
Antonio Rodriguez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Whats the udev email list location?
> Is there any irc channel for udev, by udev developers, or experts?
http://linux-hotplug.sourceforge.net (I know it says hotplug, but udev
seems to share it with hotplug for this list).
I really don't know any IR
Richard Weil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sorry to be stupid, put I can't find much
> documentation on the udev/links.conf file. Would I add
> the following to links.conf in order to create
> /dev/md0?
>
> M md0b 9 0
Probably
M md
> I'm not sure of t
Sorry to be stupid, put I can't find much
documentation on the udev/links.conf file. Would I add
the following to links.conf in order to create
/dev/md0?
M md0b 9 0
I'm not sure of the distinction between L, D, M in the
file, though I assume L is link, D is directory and M
is so
g two of three). When I
> > reboot, udev does not re-create my /dev/md0 device, so
> > the RAID array won't start. Any suggestions?
>
> udev won't create the md? devices because the RAID never notifies
> udev/sysfs about it. The just have a thread about on the udev m
Richard Weil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm running Sarge with a 2.6.5 kernel. I'm trying to
> create a RAID 5 array of three disks (though for
> initial setup I'm only using two of three). When I
> reboot, udev does not re-create my /dev/md0 device, so
I'm running Sarge with a 2.6.5 kernel. I'm trying to
create a RAID 5 array of three disks (though for
initial setup I'm only using two of three). When I
reboot, udev does not re-create my /dev/md0 device, so
the RAID array won't start. Any suggestions?
I found a posting onl
> "Frans" == Frans Schreuder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Frans> Primary partition only one; fd filetype (linux raid auto). For
Frans> each disk.(hdb; hdc).They are "identical" disks but
Frans> clusters/heads/sectors differ??
The CHS figures shouldn't matter, as long as fdisk reports the s
.deb
- Original Message -
From: "Guy Geens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2001 8:58 AM
Subject: Re: Raid; mkraid /dev/md0
> >>>>> "Frans" == Frans Schreuder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Frans> Thanx for the re
> "Frans" == Frans Schreuder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Frans> Thanx for the reply. FYI: the raidtab file is /etc/raidtab (and
Frans> also /etc/raid/raidtab)
The raidtab looks OK to me. What are the partitions on your disks?
--
G. ``Iggy'' Geens - ICQ: #64109250
Home: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Thanx for the reply.
FYI: the raidtab file is /etc/raidtab (and also /etc/raid/raidtab)
Raidtab:
raiddev /dev/md0
raid-level0
nr-raid-disks2
persistent-superblock1
chunk-size8
device/dev/hdb1
raid-disk0
device
>>>>> "Frans" == Frans Schreuder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Frans> I've attached the original message if anyone can shine a light
Frans> on this thing that will not work. It's really the mkraid
Frans> /dev/md0 part that won't work.
Did yo
IK it is not used. (This could be considered
> > a bug in the package.)
>
Hence the copy
I thought that it maybe could be used for a mount-point but isn't it a bit
silly to have it in etc?
>
I've attached the original message if anyone can shine a light on this
thing
that w
> "Frans" == Frans Schreuder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Frans> -edited the raidtab file ( I noticed there beeing a raid
Frans> directory so I copied it from it's original location in /etc)
The raidtab file needs to be in /etc. I have noticed the /etc/raid
directory as well, but AFAIK it is n
Hai all
I've been wanting to play with raid.
Reading the software-raid-howto; I stranded on mkraid /dev/md0
That darn thing did not want to.
-apt-got raidtools2 & dpkg-i kernelpatch...2.2.10..
-edited the raidtab file ( I noticed there beeing a raid directory so I
copied it
Phil,
> This is because you created you mdtab by hand, and not with mdcreate.
> Mdcreate computes a checksum and puts it in the mdtab. When mdrunning a
> md partition, the checksum is computed and is compared to the one stored
> in the mdtab. If they're different, the md device isn't started.
On Thu, 09 Oct 1997 14:26:02 +0200 Pere Camps ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> I have a linear partition on my linux box (/dev/md0 =
> hdb7+hdb9+hdb11), and when I run the `mdadd -ar`, and I then mount the
> filesystem something like the following comes up:
>
> Warning:
Hi,
I have a linear partition on my linux box (/dev/md0 =
hdb7+hdb9+hdb11), and when I run the `mdadd -ar`, and I then mount the
filesystem something like the following comes up:
Warning: /dev/md0 has no checksum field
Should I worry?
Salutacions, Pere
60 matches
Mail list logo
