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,offset4k)?
This would
On Thursday October 25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Neil Brown wrote:
It might be worth finding out where mdadm is being run in the init
scripts and add a -v flag, and redirecting stdout/stderr to some log
file.
e.g.
mdadm -As -v /var/log/mdadm-$$ 21
And see if that leaves
Daniel L. Miller said: (by the date of Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:32:31 -0700)
Thanks for the test responses - I have re-subscribed...if I see this
myself...I'm back!
I know that gmail doesn't allow to see your own posts on mailing
lists. Only posts from other people. Maybe you have a similar
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
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 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
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
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
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 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
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
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 return the
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 believe that's
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
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 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 even
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
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
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(-)
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 superblock versions 0.9, 1.0,
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
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 the
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
stood
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 offset
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.
25 matches
Mail list logo
