Re: raid5 on 2.2.14
If the partition types are set to "fd" and you selected the "autorun" config option in block devices (it should be turned on on a rawhide-type kernel), raidstart shouldn't be necessary. (the kernel will have already started the md arrays itself, and the later initscripts raidstart call won't be necessary). Could you paste any "autorun" section of md initialization during boot? does the same problem appear even if you build-in raid5? (first-pass debugging of building-in all raid-related scsi and md modules just to get initrd and module ordering issues out of the way might help) after you boot, does /proc/mdstat show the array? active? if you boot into single-user mode, is the array already active? what's the raidtab contents? Note that as coded, the initscripts should only be attempting to raidstart inactive arrays, but I never checked to make sure that the code actually worked as intended. Given that, I don't really think any of the above really helps, but it's something to throw out there :) I think I figured it out. the drives came off of an older sun. They still had the sun disklabels on them. I never remade the new disk labels before repartitioning. I think when I rebooted the disklabels got in the way of the disks being recognized correctly and it ate the drive. I also found out later than one of the drives I was using had somesort of fairly heinous fault. It would detect but would only occasionally be found by linux. I took it out of the array I think I'm going to rma it. thanks for the help. As an additional question. What sort of numbers should I be seeing (performance wise) on a u2w 4 disk array in raid5. I'm getting about 15MB/s write and 25MB/s read but I wouldn't mind getting those numbers cranked up some. I'm using 32K chunksize with the stride setting correctly set (as per jakob's howto). I'm testing with 500MB/1000MB/1500MB/2000MB bonnie tests. The machine is a k6-2 500 with 128MB of ram Scsi controller is a tekram 390U2W The disks are seagate 7200RPM's baracudda (18 and 9 gig versions) I'm using 1 9gig partition of each of the 18 gig drives and the whole drive on the 2 9 gig drives. thanks -sv
raid5 on 2.2.14
Hi folks, got a small problem. I'm running redhat 6.1+ (2.2.14-5.0 kernels from rawhide and new raidtools 0.90-6) I've checked and the 2.2.14-5.0 are using the B1 patch from mingo's page. I think the raidtools they are using (mentioned above) are the correct version. Here is what happens: I build a raid 5 array (5 disks) it builds and I can mount and write things to it. I'm not doing root fs on it but I build a new initrd anyway - it builds and includes the raid5 modules - I rerun lilo. I boot. I get raidstart /dev/md0 invalid argument /dev/md0 I've checked the archives and it looks like others have experienced this problem but they've all been related to other issues. is there something i'm missing? I think I've covered all the bases. any ideas? thanks -sv
Re: RAID5 and 2.2.14
I took the patch I grabbed at work on a SUN box and loaded it... it was 60K smaller than the one I was loading last night. Patched a fresh 2.2.14 kernel with no problems and the raid is up and running! Thanks for everyone's help, and Damn you, Bill Gates for your Kludged 8 bit GUI OS! At 10:23 PM 1/24/00 +0800, Gary Allpike wrote: I have put up a pre-patched kernel source at : http://spice.indigo.net.au/linux-2.2.14+raid-2.2.14-B1.tar.bz2 === David Cooley N5XMT Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Packet: N5XMT@KQ4LO.#INT.NC.USA.NA T.A.P.R. Member #7068 We are Borg... Prepare to be assimilated! ===
Re: RAID5 and 2.2.14
David, I think you may have a kernel that has had other patches applied to it. 2.2.14 and the associated patch worked fine for me, the patch applied with no rejects. regards Gary Allpike [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.au On Sun, 23 Jan 2000, David Cooley wrote: Anyone successfully gotten raid 5 working with the new 2.2.14 kernel? I downloaded the 2.2.14 kernel source tree and installed it, then downloaded Mingo's 2.2.14 raid patch. The patch appeared to work fine on the first few hunks, then failed miserably on the last 100 or so hunks. Tried a compile and booted to the new kernel... none of the raid functions work, and it says it found the raid superblock, but it has errors. Boot back to 2.2.12 kernel and raid is fine. === David Cooley N5XMT Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Packet: N5XMT@KQ4LO.#INT.NC.USA.NA T.A.P.R. Member #7068 We are Borg... Prepare to be assimilated! ===
Re: RAID5 and 2.2.14
Where'd you get your source? I downloaded mine from ftp.kernel.org and it's 2.2.14-1.3.0 At 11:08 AM 1/24/00 +0800, Gary Allpike wrote: David, I think you may have a kernel that has had other patches applied to it. 2.2.14 and the associated patch worked fine for me, the patch applied with no rejects. regards Gary Allpike [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.au On Sun, 23 Jan 2000, David Cooley wrote: Anyone successfully gotten raid 5 working with the new 2.2.14 kernel? I downloaded the 2.2.14 kernel source tree and installed it, then downloaded Mingo's 2.2.14 raid patch. The patch appeared to work fine on the first few hunks, then failed miserably on the last 100 or so hunks. Tried a compile and booted to the new kernel... none of the raid functions work, and it says it found the raid superblock, but it has errors. Boot back to 2.2.12 kernel and raid is fine. === David Cooley N5XMT Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Packet: N5XMT@KQ4LO.#INT.NC.USA.NA T.A.P.R. Member #7068 We are Borg... Prepare to be assimilated! === === David Cooley N5XMT Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Packet: N5XMT@KQ4LO.#INT.NC.USA.NA T.A.P.R. Member #7068 We are Borg... Prepare to be assimilated! ===
Re: RAID5 and 2.2.14
Here's what I get when patching against a fresh 2.2.13-1.3.0 kernel source Where'd you get your source? I downloaded mine from ftp.kernel.org and it's 2.2.14-1.3.0 At 11:08 AM 1/24/00 +0800, Gary Allpike wrote: [root@bigdaddy src]# patch -p0 -i raid-2.2.14 patching file `linux/init/main.c' Hunk #1 FAILED at 19. Hunk #2 FAILED at 489. Hunk #3 FAILED at 929. Hunk #4 FAILED at 1430. 4 out of 4 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to linux/init/main.c.rej patching file `linux/include/linux/raid/linear.h' patching file `linux/include/linux/raid/hsm_p.h' patching file `linux/include/linux/raid/md.h' patching file `linux/include/linux/raid/md_compatible.h' patching file `linux/include/linux/raid/md_k.h' patching file `linux/include/linux/raid/md_p.h' patching file `linux/include/linux/raid/md_u.h' patching file `linux/include/linux/raid/raid0.h' patching file `linux/include/linux/raid/raid1.h' patching file `linux/include/linux/raid/raid5.h' patching file `linux/include/linux/raid/translucent.h' patching file `linux/include/linux/raid/xor.h' patching file `linux/include/linux/raid/hsm.h' patching file `linux/include/linux/raid5.h' Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected! Assume -R? [n] n Apply anyway? [n] n Skipping patch. 1 out of 1 hunk ignored -- saving rejects to linux/include/linux/raid5.h.rej patching file `linux/include/linux/sysctl.h' Hunk #1 FAILED at 429. 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to linux/include/linux/sysctl.h.rej patching file `linux/include/linux/blkdev.h' Hunk #1 FAILED at 62. 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to linux/include/linux/blkdev.h.rej patching file `linux/include/linux/md.h' Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected! Assume -R? [n] n Apply anyway? [n] n Skipping patch. 1 out of 1 hunk ignored -- saving rejects to linux/include/linux/md.h.rej patching file `linux/include/linux/raid0.h' Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected! Assume -R? [n] n Apply anyway? [n] n Skipping patch. 1 out of 1 hunk ignored -- saving rejects to linux/include/linux/raid0.h.rej patching file `linux/include/linux/raid1.h' Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected! Assume -R? [n] n Apply anyway? [n] n Skipping patch. 1 out of 1 hunk ignored -- saving rejects to linux/include/linux/raid1.h.rej patching file `linux/include/linux/fs.h' Hunk #1 FAILED at 181. Hunk #2 FAILED at 752. Hunk #3 FAILED at 773. Hunk #4 FAILED at 799. Hunk #5 FAILED at 889. Hunk #6 FAILED at 905. 6 out of 6 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to linux/include/linux/fs.h.rej patching file `linux/include/asm-i386/md.h' Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected! Assume -R? [n] n Apply anyway? [n] n Skipping patch. 1 out of 1 hunk ignored -- saving rejects to linux/include/asm-i386/md.h.rej patching file `linux/include/asm-alpha/md.h' Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected! Assume -R? [n] n Apply anyway? [n] n Skipping patch. 1 out of 1 hunk ignored -- saving rejects to linux/include/asm-alpha/md.h.rej patching file `linux/include/asm-m68k/md.h' Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected! Assume -R? [n] n Apply anyway? [n] n Skipping patch. 1 out of 1 hunk ignored -- saving rejects to linux/include/asm-m68k/md.h.rej patching file `linux/include/asm-sparc/md.h' Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected! Assume -R? [n] n Apply anyway? [n] n Skipping patch. 1 out of 1 hunk ignored -- saving rejects to linux/include/asm-sparc/md.h.rej patching file `linux/include/asm-ppc/md.h' Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected! Assume -R? [n] n Apply anyway? [n] n Skipping patch. 1 out of 1 hunk ignored -- saving rejects to linux/include/asm-ppc/md.h.rej patching file `linux/include/asm-sparc64/md.h' Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected! Assume -R? [n] n Apply anyway? [n] n Skipping patch. 1 out of 1 hunk ignored -- saving rejects to linux/include/asm-sparc64/md.h.rej patching file `linux/drivers/block/Makefile' Hunk #1 FAILED at 278. 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to linux/drivers/block/Makefile.rej patching file `linux/drivers/block/Config.in' Hunk #1 FAILED at 101. 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to linux/drivers/block/Config.in.rej patching file `linux/drivers/block/genhd.c' Hunk #1 FAILED at 28. Hunk #2 FAILED at 775. Hunk #3 FAILED at 831. Hunk #4 FAILED at 844. Hunk #5 FAILED at 1452. Hunk #6 FAILED at 1495. 6 out of 6 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to linux/drivers/block/genhd.c.rej patching file `linux/drivers/block/linear.c' Hunk #1 FAILED at 1. Hunk #2 FAILED at 18. 2 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to linux/drivers/block/linear.c.rej patching file `linux/drivers/block/linear.h' Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected! Assume -R? [n] n Apply anyway? [n] n Skipping patch. 1 out of 1 hunk ignored -- saving rejects to linux/drivers/block/linear.h.rej patching file `linux/drivers/block/md.c' Hunk #1 FAILED at 1. Hunk #2 FAILED at 22. Hunk #3 FAILED at 3032. Hunk #4 FAILED at 3442. Hunk #5 FAILED at 3831. Hunk #6
Re: RAID5 and 2.2.14
Anyone successfully gotten raid 5 working with the new 2.2.14 kernel? I downloaded the 2.2.14 kernel source tree and installed it, then downloaded Mingo's 2.2.14 raid patch. The patch appeared to work fine on the first few hunks, then failed miserably on the last 100 or so Yes, I converted an old 0.42 raid5 system last week and delivered a customer raid1 system, both with a virgin 2.2.14 kernel + mingos latest patch. No problems at all. The kernels were built on a clean 2.2.13 (non-raid) system. get your kernel from kernel.org make sure you: patch -p1 mingos.patch.file all hunks should go in OK -- did for me Michael
Re: RAID5 and 2.2.14
At 08:06 PM 1/23/00 -0800, Michael Robinton wrote: Anyone successfully gotten raid 5 working with the new 2.2.14 kernel? I downloaded the 2.2.14 kernel source tree and installed it, then downloaded Mingo's 2.2.14 raid patch. The patch appeared to work fine on the first few hunks, then failed miserably on the last 100 or so Yes, I converted an old 0.42 raid5 system last week and delivered a customer raid1 system, both with a virgin 2.2.14 kernel + mingos latest patch. No problems at all. The kernels were built on a clean 2.2.13 (non-raid) system. get your kernel from kernel.org make sure you: patch -p1 mingos.patch.file all hunks should go in OK -- did for me Since I put his patch in /usr/src I used patch -p0 raid-2.2.14-b1 === David Cooley N5XMT Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Packet: N5XMT@KQ4LO.#INT.NC.USA.NA T.A.P.R. Member #7068 We are Borg... Prepare to be assimilated! ===
Re: RAID5 and 2.2.14
[ Sunday, January 23, 2000 ] David Cooley wrote: Since I put his patch in /usr/src I used patch -p0 raid-2.2.14-b1 This is the 3rd reported problem with the 2.2.14 patch and the first two were both bad downloads (both netscape I believe, strangely enough). Perhaps try using something like "wget" to fetch the patch. I've demonstrated the patch working multiple times on this list... just scan the archives if you wish to see it. James -- Miscellaneous Engineer --- IBM Netfinity Performance Development
Re: RAID5 and 2.2.14
On Sun, 23 Jan 2000, David Cooley wrote: Here's what I get when patching against a fresh 2.2.13-1.3.0 kernel source Where'd you get your source? I downloaded mine from ftp.kernel.org and it's 2.2.14-1.3.0 What is this '-1.3.0'? I don't think this is plain kernel source... If I go to ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.2/ (that is where official kernel tarballs are) I see linux-2.2.14.tar.bz2 (and .gz and .sign files). D.
Re: RAID5 and 2.2.14
I just re-downloaded the Kernel source and patch while at work on a SUN box running Solaris 2.6... I'll get this too, but will play with the patching first to see if it was windows trashing the patch on the download. Thanks! Dave At 10:23 PM 1/24/2000 +0800, Gary Allpike wrote: I have put up a pre-patched kernel source at : http://spice.indigo.net.au/linux-2.2.14+raid-2.2.14-B1.tar.bz2 regards Gary Allpike [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.au On Mon, 24 Jan 2000, David Cooley wrote: Oops... I meant fresh 2.2.14 kernel.org source. At 10:33 PM 1/23/2000 -0500, David Cooley wrote: Here's what I get when patching against a fresh 2.2.13-1.3.0 kernel source Where'd you get your source? I downloaded mine from ftp.kernel.org and it's 2.2.14-1.3.0 At 11:08 AM 1/24/00 +0800, Gary Allpike wrote: === David Cooley N5XMT Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Packet: N5XMT@KQ4LO.#INT.NC.USA.NA T.A.P.R. Member #7068 We are Borg... Prepare to be assimilated! === === David Cooley N5XMT Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Packet: N5XMT@KQ4LO.#INT.NC.USA.NA T.A.P.R. Member #7068 We are Borg... Prepare to be assimilated! === === David Cooley N5XMT Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Packet: N5XMT@KQ4LO.#INT.NC.USA.NA T.A.P.R. Member #7068 We are Borg... Prepare to be assimilated! ===
Re: RAID5 and 2.2.14
Oops... I meant fresh 2.2.14 kernel.org source. At 10:33 PM 1/23/2000 -0500, David Cooley wrote: Here's what I get when patching against a fresh 2.2.13-1.3.0 kernel source Where'd you get your source? I downloaded mine from ftp.kernel.org and it's 2.2.14-1.3.0 At 11:08 AM 1/24/00 +0800, Gary Allpike wrote: === David Cooley N5XMT Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Packet: N5XMT@KQ4LO.#INT.NC.USA.NA T.A.P.R. Member #7068 We are Borg... Prepare to be assimilated! === === David Cooley N5XMT Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Packet: N5XMT@KQ4LO.#INT.NC.USA.NA T.A.P.R. Member #7068 We are Borg... Prepare to be assimilated! ===
