Re: Problem with 3xRAID1 to RAID 0
Hello Vladimir, Tuesday, July 11, 2006, 11:41:31 AM, you wrote: VS Hi, VS I created to 3 x /dev/md1 to /dev/md3 which consist of six identical VS 200GB hdd VS my mdadm --detail --scan looks like VS Proteus:/home/vladoportos# mdadm --detail --scan VS ARRAY /dev/md1 level=raid1 num-devices=2 VS UUID=d1fadb29:cc004047:aabf2f31:3f044905 VSdevices=/dev/sdb,/dev/sda VS ARRAY /dev/md2 level=raid1 num-devices=2 VS UUID=38babb4d:92129d4a:94d659f1:3b238c53 VSdevices=/dev/sdc,/dev/sdd VS ARRAY /dev/md3 level=raid1 num-devices=2 VS UUID=a0406e29:c1f586be:6b3381cf:086be0c2 VSdevices=/dev/sde,/dev/sdf VS ARRAY /dev/md0 level=raid1 num-devices=2 VS UUID=c04441d4:e15d900e:57903584:9eb5fea6 VSdevices=/dev/hdc1,/dev/hdd1 VS and mdadm.conf VS DEVICE partitions VS ARRAY /dev/md4 level=raid0 num-devices=3 VS UUID=1c8291ba:2d83cf54:2698ce30:e49b1e6c VSdevices=/dev/md1,/dev/md2,/dev/md3 VS ARRAY /dev/md3 level=raid1 num-devices=2 VS UUID=a0406e29:c1f586be:6b3381cf:086be0c2 VSdevices=/dev/sde,/dev/sdf VS ARRAY /dev/md2 level=raid1 num-devices=2 VS UUID=38babb4d:92129d4a:94d659f1:3b238c53 VSdevices=/dev/sdc,/dev/sdd VS ARRAY /dev/md1 level=raid1 num-devices=2 VS UUID=d1fadb29:cc004047:aabf2f31:3f044905 VSdevices=/dev/sda,/dev/sdb VS ARRAY /dev/md0 level=raid1 num-devices=2 VS UUID=c04441d4:e15d900e:57903584:9eb5fea6 VSdevices=/dev/hdc1,/dev/hdd1 VS as you can see i created than from md1-3 RAID0 - md4 its works fine... VS but i cant get it again after reboot i need to create it again... VS I dont get it why it wont creat at boot... any body had similar problem ? I haven't had a problem like this, but taking a wild guess - did you try putting the definitions in mdadm.conf in a different order? In particular, you define md4 before the system knows anything about the devices md[1-3]... You can speed up the checks (I think) by using something like this instead of rebooting full-scale, except for the last check to see if it all actually works :) mdadm --stop /dev/md4 mdadm --stop /dev/md3 mdadm --stop /dev/md2 mdadm --stop /dev/md1 mdadm -As or mdadm -Asc /etc/mdadm.conf.test Also you seem to make the md[1-3] devices from whole disks. Had you made them from partitions you could 1) Set a partition type to 0xfd so that a proper kernel could make your raid1 sets at boot-time and then make md4 correctly even with the current config file 2) Move the submirrors to another disk (i.e. a new larger one) if you needed to rebuild, upgrade, recover, etc. by just making a new partition of the same size. Also keep in mind that 200Gb (and any other) disks of different models and makers can vary in size by several tens of megabytes... Bit me once with certain 36Gb SCSI disks which were somewhat larger than any competition, so we had to hunt for the same model to rebuild our array. A question to the general public: am I wrong? :) Are there any actual bonuses to making RAIDs on whole raw disks? -- Best regards, Jim Klimovmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Problem with 3xRAID1 to RAID 0
Jim Klimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are there any actual bonuses to making RAIDs on whole raw disks? You win 63 sectors (i.e. 32k) usually. regards Mario -- *axiom* welcher sensorische input bewirkte die output-aktion, den irc-chatter mit dem nick dus des irc-servers mittels eines kills zu verweisen? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Problem with 3xRAID1 to RAID 0
Are there any actual bonuses to making RAIDs on whole raw disks? Not if you're using regular md devices. For partitionable md arrays using partitions seems a little strange to me, since you then have partitions on a partition. That'd probably make it difficult to just mount a single member of a mirror for data recovery, etc ... And Neil seems to favour initrd over kernel auto-detection / assembly anyhow. FWIW, I use whole disks and limit the space used per disk to exactly the rated capacity, i. e. floor ( ( GB * 10^9 ) / 1024 ) blocks with the --size parameter. Regards, C. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: only 4 spares and no access to my data
Karl Voit wrote:
if (super == NULL) {
fprintf(stderr, Name : No suitable drives found for %s\n, mddev);
[...]
Well I guess, the message will be shown, if the superblock is not found.
Yes. No clue why, my buest guess is that you've already zeroed the superblock.
What does madm --query / --examine say about /dev/sd[abcd], are there
superblocks ?
st = guess_super(fd);
if (st == NULL) {
if (!quiet)
fprintf(stderr, Name : Unrecognised md component device - %s\n,
dev);
Again: this seems to be the case, when the superblock is empty.
Yes, looks like it can't find any usable superblocks.
Maybe you've accidentally zeroed the superblocks on sd[abcd]1 also?
If you fdisk -l /dev/sd[abcd], does the partition tables look like
they should / like they used to?
What does mdadm --query / --examine /dev/sd[abcd]1 tell you, any superblocks ?
Since my miserably failure I am probably too careful *g*
The problem is also, that without deeper background knowledge, I can not
predict, if this or that permanently affects the real data on the disks.
My best guess is that it's OK and you won't loose data if you run
--zero-superblock on /dev/sd[abcd] and then create an array on
/dev/sd[abcd]1, but I do find it odd that it suddenly can't find
superblocks on /dev/sd[abcd]1.
Maybe such a person like me starts to think that sw-raid-tools like
mdadm should warn users before permanent changes are executed. If
mdadm should be used by users (additional to raid-geeks like you),
it might be a good idea to prevent data loss. (Ment as a suggestion.)
Perhaps. Or perhaps mdadm should just tell you that you're doing
something stupid if you try to manipulate arrays on a block device
which seems to contain a partition table.
It's not like it's even remotely useful to create an MD array spanning
the whole disk rather than spanning a partition which spans the whole
disk, anyway.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
