Re: Same UUID for every member of all array ?

On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 02:57:57PM +0200, Brice Figureau wrote: Now, I don't know why all the UUID are equals (my other machines are not affected). I think at some point either in sarge or in testing between sarge and etch, there was included a version of mdadm which had this bug (all arrays had

Re: Growing a raid 6 array

Neil Brown a écrit : On Thursday March 1, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can only grow a RAID5 array in Linux as of 2.6.20 AFAIK. There are two dimensions for growth. You can increase the amount of each device that is used, or you can increase the number of devices. You are correct that

Re: Growing a raid 6 array

On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 10:15:05AM +0200, Laurent CARON wrote: Neil Brown a écrit : On Thursday March 1, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can only grow a RAID5 array in Linux as of 2.6.20 AFAIK. There are two dimensions for growth. You can increase the amount of each device that is used,

Manually hacking superblocks

I managed to mess up a RAID-5 array by mdadm -adding a few failed disks back, trying to get the array running again. Unfortunately, -add didn't do what I expected, but instead made spares out of the failed disks. The disks failed due to loose SATA cabling and the data inside should be fairly

Recovering a raid5 array with strange event count

Dear All, I have an 8-drive raid-5 array running under 2.6.11. This morning it bombed out, and when I brought it up again, two drives had incorrect event counts: sda1: 0.8258715 sdb1: 0.8258715 sdc1: 0.8258715 sdd1: 0.8258715 sde1: 0.8258715 sdf1: 0.8258715 sdg1: 0.8258708 sdh1: 0.8258716

Re: Manually hacking superblocks

Lasse Kärkkäinen wrote: I managed to mess up a RAID-5 array by mdadm -adding a few failed disks back, trying to get the array running again. Unfortunately, -add didn't do what I expected, but instead made spares out of the failed disks. The disks failed due to loose SATA cabling and the data

Re: Recovering a raid5 array with strange event count

On Friday April 13, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear All, I have an 8-drive raid-5 array running under 2.6.11. This morning it bombed out, and when I brought it up again, two drives had incorrect event counts: sda1: 0.8258715 sdb1: 0.8258715 sdc1: 0.8258715 sdd1: 0.8258715 sde1:

Re: Manually hacking superblocks

On Friday April 13, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lasse Kärkkäinen wrote: disk 0, o:1, dev:sdc1 disk 1, o:1, dev:sde1 disk 2, o:1, dev:sdg1 disk 3, o:1, dev:sdi1 disk 4, o:1, dev:sdh1 disk 5, o:1, dev:sdf1 disk 6, o:1, dev:sdd1 I gather that I need a way to alter the superblocks

Re: Same UUID for every member of all array ?

Hi, Thanks for the answer, On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 09:32 +0200, Iustin Pop wrote: On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 02:57:57PM +0200, Brice Figureau wrote: Now, I don't know why all the UUID are equals (my other machines are not affected). I think at some point either in sarge or in testing between

Re: md0: invalid bitmap page request: 249 ( 223)

John == John Stoffel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is an update email, my system is now up and running properly, though with some caveats. John I've just installed a new SATA controller and a pair of 320Gb John disks into my system. Went great. I'm running 2.6.21-rc6, with John the ATA

Re: Recovering a raid5 array with strange event count

Neil Brown wrote: On Friday April 13, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear All, I have an 8-drive raid-5 array running under 2.6.11. This morning it bombed out, and when I brought it up again, two drives had incorrect event counts: sda1: 0.8258715 sdb1: 0.8258715 sdc1: 0.8258715 sdd1:

Re: md0: invalid bitmap page request: 249 ( 223)

Bill == Bill Davidsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is there anyway I can interrupt the command I used: mdadm --grow /dev/md0 --size=# which I know now I should have used the --size=max paramter instead, but it wasn't in the man page or the online help. Oh well... I tried removing

Re: RAID5 superblocks partly messed up after degradation

Neil Brown wrote: I'll see what I can do :-) The problem could be resolved by removing one of the two external SATA controllers (PCI card with ALI M5283) and using Kernel 2.6.20.6 Only removing the ALI PCI card brought the numbering scheme in line again so the old (degraded) array became

Re: Moron Destroyed RAID6 Array Superblocks

Ok--I got moved in to my new place and am back and running on the 'net. I sat down for a few hours and attempted to write a script to try all possible combinations of drives...but I have to admit that I'm lost. I have 8 drives in the array--and I can output every possible combination of those.