On Sunday April 16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi Neil,
> Thanks for your reply. I tried that, but here is there error I
> received:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/etc# mdadm --assemble /dev/md0
> --uuid=38081921:59a998f9:64c1a001:ec53 4ef2 /dev/hd[efgh]
> mdadm: failed to add /dev/hdf to /dev/md0:
Hi Neil,
Thanks for your reply. I tried that, but here is there error I
received:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/etc# mdadm --assemble /dev/md0
--uuid=38081921:59a998f9:64c1a001:ec53 4ef2 /dev/hd[efgh]
mdadm: failed to add /dev/hdf to /dev/md0: Device or resource busy
mdadm: /dev/md0 assembled from 2
May I offer the point of view that this is a bug:
MD apparently tries to keep a raid5 array up by using 4 out of 6 disks.
Here's the event chain, from start to now:
==
1.) Array assembled automatically with 6/6 devices.
2.) Read error, MD kicks sdb1.
3.)
Neil Brown wrote:
> > How do I force MD to raise the event counter on sdb1 and accept it
> > into the array as-is, so I can avoid bad-block induced data
> > corruption?
>
> For that, you have to recreate the array.
Scary. And hairy.
How much do I have to bribe you to make this work:
# mdadm --as
On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 09:42:34PM -0300, Carlos Carvalho wrote:
> CaT ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote on 17 April 2006 10:25:
> >Not necessarily. You probably have something like (say) 200GB of data
> >stripes across that disk. That one read error may affect just one or a
> >few which means there's a wh
On Monday April 17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Neil Brown wrote:
> > use --assemble --force
>
> # mdadm --assemble --force /dev/md1
> mdadm: forcing event count in /dev/sda1(0) from 163362 upto 163368
> mdadm: /dev/md1 has been started with 5 drives (out of 6).
>
> Oops, only 5 drives, but I know
Carlos Carvalho wrote:
> You want the array to stay on and jump here and there getting the
> stripes from wherever it can, each time from a different set of disks.
> That's surely nice but I think it's too much to ask...
With the bad block rate on modern disks as high as ever, I dare say
it's an a
CaT ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote on 17 April 2006 10:25:
>On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 08:46:52PM -0300, Carlos Carvalho wrote:
>> Neil Brown ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote on 17 April 2006 09:30:
>> >The easiest thing to do when you get an error on a drive is to kick
>> >the drive from the array, so that
Molle Bestefich ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote on 17 April 2006 02:21:
>Neil Brown wrote:
>> use --assemble --force
>
># mdadm --assemble --force /dev/md1
>mdadm: forcing event count in /dev/sda1(0) from 163362 upto 163368
>mdadm: /dev/md1 has been started with 5 drives (out of 6).
>
>Oops, only
On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 08:46:52PM -0300, Carlos Carvalho wrote:
> Neil Brown ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote on 17 April 2006 09:30:
> >The easiest thing to do when you get an error on a drive is to kick
> >the drive from the array, so that is what the code always did, and
> >still does in many cases
Neil Brown wrote:
> use --assemble --force
# mdadm --assemble --force /dev/md1
mdadm: forcing event count in /dev/sda1(0) from 163362 upto 163368
mdadm: /dev/md1 has been started with 5 drives (out of 6).
Oops, only 5 drives, but I know data is OK on all 6 drives.
I also know that there are bad
On Saturday April 8, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello, list,
>
> I have one idea!
>
> I using raid4, and found to be really good, but i think this can be more
> better! :-)
>
> If the raid4 fails one disk (except the patiry disk), the md currently only
> drop the disk from array, but i think thi
On Tuesday April 11, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Good day.
>
> I am looking for some information, and hope the readers of this list
> might be able to point me in the right direction:
>
> Here is the scenario:
> In RAID5 ( or RAID6) when a file is written, some parity data is
> created, (by some f
Neil Brown ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote on 17 April 2006 09:30:
>The easiest thing to do when you get an error on a drive is to kick
>the drive from the array, so that is what the code always did, and
>still does in many cases.
>It is arguable that for a read error on a degraded raid5, that may no
On Tuesday April 11, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi Neil,
>
> Can you provide me details of your setup?
Just a ordinary p4 server with a bunch of SCSI drives.
Running 2.6.17-rc1-mm1, but I doubt that would make a difference.
> Is there any kernel configuration that I will have to change and buil
Neil Brown wrote:
> It is arguable that for a read error on a degraded raid5, that may not
> be the best thing to do, but I'm not completely convinced. A read
> error will mean that a write to the same stripe will have to fail, so
> at the very least we would want to switch the array read-only.
T
On Wednesday April 12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> yea! it is a testing server I use that is the same kernel as our main
> server... just for tests like these so we don't screw up I never
> run the real thing before I'm sure I know I've got it working on our
> test server.
>
> Well... what I d
On Monday April 17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Neil Brown wrote:
> > You shouldn't need to upgrade kernel
>
> Ok.
> I had a crazy idea that 2 devices down in a RAID5 was an MD bug.
>
> I didn't expect MD to kick that last disk - I would have thought that
> it would just pass on the read error in
On Wednesday April 12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Neil Brown (NB) writes:
>
> NB> There are a number of aspects to this.
>
> NB> - When a write arrives we 'plug' the queue so the stripe goes onto a
> NB>'delayed' list which doesn't get processed until an unplug happens,
> NB>o
Neil Brown wrote:
> You shouldn't need to upgrade kernel
Ok.
I had a crazy idea that 2 devices down in a RAID5 was an MD bug.
I didn't expect MD to kick that last disk - I would have thought that
it would just pass on the read error in that situation. If you've got
the time to explain I'd like t
On April 13, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm looking forward to testing the new SATA NCQ support that the linux
> IDE developers have working, but of course that opens me to the risk of
> disk corruption.
>
> So I'd like to be able to do clever things with the existing RAID arrays
> to mitigate t
On Thursday April 13, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Since two weeks im trying to remount a Sofraid (Level1) which I created
> with
>
> mdadm -Cv /dev/md3 -l1 -2 /dev/sdc1 /dev/sdd1
>
> --
>
>
> I?m having other softraids, wich are created by the installationsroutine
> of sa
On Thursday April 13, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 4/12/06, Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > One thing that is on my todo list is supporting shared raid1, so that
> > several nodes in the cluster can assemble the same raid1 and access it
> > - providing that the clients all do proper m
On Saturday April 15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi All,
> Recently I lost a disk in my raid5 SW array. It seems that it took a
> second disk with it. The other disk appears to still be funtional (from
> an fdisk perspective...). I am trying to get the array to work in
> degraded mode via fai
On Sunday April 16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> A system with 6 disks, it was UU a moment ago, after read errors
> on a file now looks like:
>
> /proc/mdstat:
> md1 : active raid5 sdf1[5] sde1[4] sdd1[3] sdc1[2] sdb1[6](F) sda1[7](F)
> level 5, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [6/4] [__]
>
>
On Sunday April 16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Neil Brown wrote:
> >
> >If you are writing exactly half the data in a stripe, I think it takes
> >the first option (Read the old unchanged data) as that is fewer reads
> >than reading the old changed data and the parity block.
> >
> >Does that make se
A system with 6 disks, it was UU a moment ago, after read errors
on a file now looks like:
/proc/mdstat:
md1 : active raid5 sdf1[5] sde1[4] sdd1[3] sdc1[2] sdb1[6](F) sda1[7](F)
level 5, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [6/4] [__]
uname:
linux 2.6.11-gentoo-r4
What's the recommended appr
Colin McDonald wrote:
I appear to have a corrupt file system and now it is mirrored. LOL.
I am running Redhat Enterprise 3 and using mdtools.
I booted from the install media iso and went into rescue mode. RH was
unable to find the partitions automatically but after exiting into
bash i can run
Jim Klimov wrote:
Hello linux-raid,
I have tried several cheap RAID controllers recently (namely,
VIA VT6421, Intel 6300ESB and Adaptec/Marvell 885X6081).
VIA one is a PCI card, the second two are built in a Supermicro
motherboard (E7520/X6DHT-G).
The intent was to let the BIOS of the
29 matches
Mail list logo
