On Monday August 21, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
>
> We have had a raidsystem running for several years
> Created by the Fedora Core 2 installscript.
>
> Is has bit bigger raidsystem of more than 11 TB
> It was installed on 32 bit Fedora Core 2 linux 2.6.10 with mdadm 1.50
>
> After a fail
On Tuesday August 22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Am Montag, 21. August 2006 13:04 schrieb Dexter Filmore:
> I seriously don't know what's going on here.
> I upgraded packages and rebooted the machine to find that now disk 4 of 4 is
> not assembled.
>
> Here's dmesg and mdadm -E
>
>
Am Montag, 21. August 2006 13:04 schrieb Dexter Filmore:
I seriously don't know what's going on here.
I upgraded packages and rebooted the machine to find that now disk 4 of 4 is
not assembled.
Here's dmesg and mdadm -E
* dmesg **
[ 38.439644] md: md0 stopped.
On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 17:35 +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
> > Buffer I/O error on device sde3, logical block 1793
>
> This, on the other hand, might be a problem - though possibly only a
> small one.
> Who is trying to access sde3 I wonder. I'm fairly sure the kernel
> wouldn't do that directly.
It'
-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know.
--
From: NeilBrown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
At the point where this 'atomic_add' is, rdev could be NULL, as seen by
the fact that we test for this in the very next statement.
Further is it is really the wrong pla
On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 10:05:26AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> patch for 2.6.17 stable series.
> Thanks,
> NeilBrown
> ### Comments for Changeset
>
> At the point where this 'atomic_add' is, rdev could be NULL,
> as seen by the fact that we test for this in the very next
> statement.
> Further is i
We have had a raidsystem running for several years
Created by the Fedora Core 2 installscript.
Is has bit bigger raidsystem of more than 11 TB
It was installed on 32 bit Fedora Core 2 linux 2.6.10 with mdadm 1.50
After a failure we had one disk that was out sync.
Couldn't assemble raidset,
Am Montag, 21. August 2006 03:26 schrieb Neil Brown:
>
> The output of
> mdadm -E /dev/sdc1
> might have been interesting, but I guess it is too late for that now.
True. Bummer. As you can imagine I wanted the array degraded for as short as
possible and was eager to take measures to bring it ba
On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 17:35 +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Saturday August 19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'm having a problem with my RAID5 array, here's the deal:
> >
> > System is an AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ on a Gigabyte K8NS-939-Ultra
> > (nForce3 Ultra). Linux 2.6.17.7, x86_6
On Saturday August 19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm having a problem with my RAID5 array, here's the deal:
>
> System is an AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ on a Gigabyte K8NS-939-Ultra
> (nForce3 Ultra). Linux 2.6.17.7, x86_64. Debian GNU/Linux Sid, GCC 4.1.1
> (kernel configured and compile
10 matches
Mail list logo