On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 16:12 +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
> > md: md0 stopped.
> > md: md0 stopped.
> > md: bind
> > md: bind
> > md: bind
> > md: md0: raid array is not clean -- starting background reconstruction
> > raid10: raid set md0 active with 3 out of 4 devices
> > md: couldn't update array inf
On Wed, 2007-10-24 at 22:43 -0700, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
> Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Daniel L. Miller wrote:
> >> Current mdadm.conf:
> >> DEVICE partitions
> >> ARRAY /dev/.static/dev/md0 level=raid10 num-devices=4
> >> UUID=9d94b17b:f5fac31a:577c252b:0d4c4b2a auto=part
> >>
> >> still have t
On Wednesday October 24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Current mdadm.conf:
> DEVICE partitions
> ARRAY /dev/.static/dev/md0 level=raid10 num-devices=4
> UUID=9d94b17b:f5fac31a:577c252b:0d4c4b2a auto=part
>
> still have the problem where on boot one drive is not part of the
> array. Is there a log
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Daniel L. Miller wrote:
Current mdadm.conf:
DEVICE partitions
ARRAY /dev/.static/dev/md0 level=raid10 num-devices=4
UUID=9d94b17b:f5fac31a:577c252b:0d4c4b2a auto=part
still have the problem where on boot one drive is not part of the
array. Is there a log file I can chec
Neil Brown wrote:
On Tuesday October 23, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As for where the metadata "should" be placed, it is interesting to
observe that the SNIA's "DDFv1.2" puts it at the end of the device.
And as DDF is an industry standard sponsored by multiple companies it
must be ..
Sorry. I h
From: "Dan Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:49:28 -0700
> Hopefully it is as painless to run on sparc as it is on IA:
>
> opcontrol --start --vmlinux=/path/to/vmlinux
>
> opcontrol --stop
> opreport --image-path=/lib/modules/`uname -r` -l
It is painless, I use it all the
On Tuesday October 23, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 19:03 -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> > John Stoffel wrote:
> > > Why do we have three different positions for storing the superblock?
> > >
> > Why do you suggest changing anything until you get the answer to this
> > ques
On 10/24/07, BERTRAND Joël <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Any news about this trouble ? Any idea ? I'm trying to fix it, but I
> don't see any specific interaction between raid5 and istd. Does anyone
> try to reproduce this bug on another arch than sparc64 ? I only use
> sp
On Wed, 2007-10-24 at 16:04 -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> I think what you really want is to notice how long the drive and driver
> took to recover or fail, and take action based on that. In general "kick
> the drive" is not optimal for a few bad spots, even if the drive
> recovery sucks.
The
Doug Ledford wrote:
On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 16:39 -0400, John Stoffel wrote:
I don't agree completely. I think the superblock location is a key
issue, because if you have a superblock location which moves depending
the filesystem or LVM you use to look at the partition (or full disk)
then you
BERTRAND Joël wrote:
Hello,
Any news about this trouble ? Any idea ? I'm trying to fix it, but
I don't see any specific interaction between raid5 and istd. Does
anyone try to reproduce this bug on another arch than sparc64 ? I only
use sparc32 and 64 servers and I cannot test on other
Alberto Alonso wrote:
On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 18:45 -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
I'm not sure the timeouts are the problem, even if md did its own
timeout, it then needs a way to tell the driver (or device) to stop
retrying. I don't believe that's available, certainly not everywhere,
and anyt
Daniel L. Miller wrote:
Daniel L. Miller wrote:
Richard Scobie wrote:
Daniel L. Miller wrote:
And you didn't ask, but my mdadm.conf:
DEVICE partitions
ARRAY /dev/.static/dev/md0 level=raid10 num-devices=4
UUID=9d94b17b:f5fac31a:577c252b:0d4c4b2a
Try adding
auto=part
at the end of you mda
On 10/24/07, tirumalareddy marri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>I am looking for best way of understanding MD
> driver(including raid5/6) architecture. I am
> developing driver for one of the PPC based SOC. I have
> done some code reading and tried to use HW debugger to
> walk through the
Hi,
I am looking for best way of understanding MD
driver(including raid5/6) architecture. I am
developing driver for one of the PPC based SOC. I have
done some code reading and tried to use HW debugger to
walk through the code. But it was not much help.
If you have any pointers or document
On Wed, 2007-10-24 at 07:22 -0700, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
> Daniel L. Miller wrote:
> > Richard Scobie wrote:
> >> Daniel L. Miller wrote:
> >>
> >>> And you didn't ask, but my mdadm.conf:
> >>> DEVICE partitions
> >>> ARRAY /dev/.static/dev/md0 level=raid10 num-devices=4
> >>> UUID=9d94b17b:f5fa
John Stoffel wrote:
"Bill" == Bill Davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Bill> John Stoffel wrote:
Why do we have three different positions for storing the superblock?
Bill> Why do you suggest changing anything until you get the answer to
Bill> this question? If you do
On 10/24/07, John Stoffel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Bill" == Bill Davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Bill> John Stoffel wrote:
> >> Why do we have three different positions for storing the superblock?
>
> Bill> Why do you suggest changing anything until you get the answer to
> Bill>
Daniel L. Miller wrote:
Richard Scobie wrote:
Daniel L. Miller wrote:
And you didn't ask, but my mdadm.conf:
DEVICE partitions
ARRAY /dev/.static/dev/md0 level=raid10 num-devices=4
UUID=9d94b17b:f5fac31a:577c252b:0d4c4b2a
Try adding
auto=part
at the end of you mdadm.conf ARRAY line.
Than
> "Bill" == Bill Davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Bill> John Stoffel wrote:
>> Why do we have three different positions for storing the superblock?
Bill> Why do you suggest changing anything until you get the answer to
Bill> this question? If you don't understand why there are three
Bil
Doug Ledford wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 16:39 -0400, John Stoffel wrote:
>
>> I don't agree completely. I think the superblock location is a key
>> issue, because if you have a superblock location which moves depending
>> the filesystem or LVM you use to look at the partition (or full disk)
>
Hello,
Any news about this trouble ? Any idea ? I'm trying to fix it, but I
don't see any specific interaction between raid5 and istd. Does anyone
try to reproduce this bug on another arch than sparc64 ? I only use
sparc32 and 64 servers and I cannot test on other archs. Of course, I
22 matches
Mail list logo
