On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 00:20 +0200, Gabor Gombas wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 02:41:56PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
>
> > * When using lilo to boot from a raid device, it automatically installs
> > itself to the mbr, not to the partition. This can not be changed. Only
> > 0.90 and 1.0 superbl
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 02:52:59PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> In fact, no you can't. I know, because I've created a device that had
> both but wasn't a raid device. And it's matching partner still existed
> too. What you are talking about would have misrecognized this
> situation, guaranteed.
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 02:41:56PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> * When using lilo to boot from a raid device, it automatically installs
> itself to the mbr, not to the partition. This can not be changed. Only
> 0.90 and 1.0 superblock types are supported because lilo doesn't
> understand the off
On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 11:15 +0200, Luca Berra wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 02:40:06AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> >The partition table is the single, (mostly) universally recognized
> >arbiter of what possible data might be on the disk. Having a partition
> >table may not make mdadm recognize
On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 12:12 -0500, Alberto Alonso wrote:
> I've been asking on my other posts but haven't seen
> a direct reply to this question:
>
> Can MD implement timeouts so that it detects problems when
> drivers don't come back?
>
> For me this year shall be known as "the year the array
>
On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 11:54 +0200, Luca Berra wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 09:11:57AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> just apply some rules, so if you find a partition table _AND_ an md
> superblock at the end, read both and you can tell if it is an md on a
> partition or a partitioned md raid1 de
On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 10:18 -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Neil Brown wrote:
> > On Thursday October 25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >> I didn't get a reply to my suggestion of separating the data and
> >> location...
> >>
> >
> > No. Sorry.
> >
> >
> >> ie not talking about superbloc
Make both mktables.c and its output CodingStyle compliant. Update the
copyright notice.
Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
drivers/md/mktables.c | 166 +++--
1 files changed, 79 insertions(+), 87 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/m
Clean up the coding style in raid6test/test.c. Break it apart into
subfunctions to make the code more readable.
Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
drivers/md/raid6test/test.c | 117 +--
1 files changed, 69 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)
I've been asking on my other posts but haven't seen
a direct reply to this question:
Can MD implement timeouts so that it detects problems when
drivers don't come back?
For me this year shall be known as "the year the array
stood still" (bad scifi reference :-)
After 4 different array failures a
On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 18:12 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Depending on the hardware you can still access a different disk while
> another one is reseting. But since there is no timeout in md it won't
> try to use any other disk while one is stuck.
>
> That is exactly what I miss.
>
> MfG
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 06:22:27PM +0200, Gabor Gombas wrote:
> You got the ordering wrong. You should get userspace support ready and
> accepted _first_, and then you can start the
> flamew^H^H^H^H^H^Hdiscussion to make the in-kernel partitioning code
> configurable.
Oh wait that is possible eve
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 11:15:13AM +0200, Luca Berra wrote:
> on a pc maybe, but that is 20 years old design.
> partition table design is limited because it is still based on C/H/S,
> which do not exist anymore.
The MS-DOS format is not the only possible partition table layout. Other
formats such
Can someone help me understand superblocks and MD a little bit?
I've got a raid5 array with 3 disks - sdb1, sdc1, sdd1.
--examine on these 3 drives shows correct information.
However, if I also examine the raw disk devices, sdb and sdd, they
also appear to have superblocks with some semi valid
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 11:54:18AM +0200, Luca Berra wrote:
> but the fix is easy.
> remove the partition detection code from the kernel and start working on
> a smart userspace replacement for device detection. we already have
> vol_id from udev and blkid from ext3 which support detection of many
Bill Davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 bel
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Justin Piszcz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Alberto Alonso wrote:
On Thu, 2007-10-18 at 17:26 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Mike Accetta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
What I would like to see is a timeout driven fal
Justin Piszcz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Alberto Alonso wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2007-10-18 at 17:26 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>>> Mike Accetta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> What I would like to see is a timeout driven fallback mechanism. If
>>> one mirror does not
Neil Brown wrote:
On Thursday October 25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I didn't get a reply to my suggestion of separating the data and location...
No. Sorry.
ie not talking about superblock versions 0.9, 1.0, 1.1, 1.2 etc but a data
format (0.9 vs 1.0) and a location (end,start,offse
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, Filippo Carletti wrote:
Is there a way to control an array resync process?
In particular, is it possible to skip read errors?
My setup:
LVM2 Phisical Volume over a two disks MD RAID1 array
Logical Volumes didn't span whole PV, some PE free at the end of disks
What happen
Is there a way to control an array resync process?
In particular, is it possible to skip read errors?
My setup:
LVM2 Phisical Volume over a two disks MD RAID1 array
Logical Volumes didn't span whole PV, some PE free at the end of disks
What happened:
disk1 broke
I installed new disk1
and started
On Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 09:11:57AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
On Sat, 2007-10-20 at 09:53 +0200, Iustin Pop wrote:
Honestly, I don't see how a properly configured system would start
looking at the physical device by mistake. I suppose it's possible, but
I didn't have this issue.
Mount by labe
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 02:40:06AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
partition table (something that the Fedora/RHEL installers do to all
disks without partition tables...well, the installer tells you there's
no partition table and asks if you want to initialize it, but if someone
is in a hurry and hits
23 matches
Mail list logo
