I assume you already have success booting directly into a RAID configuration
from a floppy disk. If not, that would be a good thing to get working
before trying anything more complicated and will give you a backup process
in case your version of LILO doesn't do the entire job.
I have no experien
The message about overlaping physical units does not indicate failure...
Where there are multiple mirrors on the same physical disks, the Raid code
avoids recovering more than one at a time for performance reasons. It
should recover the first one selected, then sequentially the other mirrors
in
There's a slightly newer version of the lilo raid1 patches available at
http://www.elliott-turbo.com/lilo/ which takes into account some of the
isues you've mentioned.
Rich B
- Original Message -
From: "Martin Bene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Neil Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROT
Please take a look at my patches which fix this at
http://www.elliott-turbo.com/lilo
Rich B
- Original Message -
From: "Junjiro Okajima" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2000 12:23 AM
Subject: lilo.raid1 and lilo-0.21-1.1.patch
>
> Hello, all.
> I am no
- Original Message -
From: "Jieming Wang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Richard Bollinger'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "linux raid mailing list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 2:08 PM
Subjec
al Message -
From: "Jieming Wang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Richard Bollinger'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "linux raid mailing list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 9:17 AM
Subject: RE: strange e
We need clues as well... Let us see your /etc/lilo.conf file, tell us what
version of lilo you're using and what's mounted (/proc/mounts or /etc/mtab).
Thanks, Rich B
- Original Message -
From: "Jieming Wang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 2:25 P
rwise booting from mirror won't show list with TAB or have a
working default (normally it would pick the first entry in order)
We should fix #2 in LILO itself
Rich B
- Original Message -
From: "Marc MERLIN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Richard Bollinger" &
it just happened to be
an exact match after a reboot and the RAID logic decided that everything was
in sync without any further effort!
Thanks, Rich B
- Original Message -
From: "Corin Hartland-Swann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Richard Bollinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your logs indicate that the Raid code decided to look at hdh2 as gospel and
dismiss all of the rest. The easiest solution is to temporarily disconnect
or disable hdh2, then restart the system. It will accept the data on all of
the other drives as OK now and start up the array in "degraded" mode
I'm not sure how to fix it, but I'm suspicious that some portion of the data
which LILO should have written to both mirrors is only being written to the
"first" drive in the mirror; which in your case is your second physical
drive. Note that LILO says its working on /dev/sdb1 first, then /dev/sda
Working with the previously posted patch to LILO which makes it work with
RAID1 boot and root disks I noticed a few errors and omissions:
1) It doesn't work if you've resynced the array since your last boot
2) It doesn't correctly notice FAULTY drives and avoid them
3) It doesn't work if one of y
I had seen this same problem in a prior version and had emailed the
following comment to the list with no reply:
...
With linux 2.0.36 and patch raid0145-19990421-2.0.36 applied, if a disk is
looked at for autostart but rejected because it's superblock is out of
date, you can't raidhotadd or raid
With linux 2.0.36 and patch raid0145-19990421-2.0.36 applied, if a disk is
looked at for autostart but rejected because it's superblock is out of
date, you can't raidhotadd or raidhotremove it because the dummy inode is
still out there. This would be no problem if I had really replaced the disk
14 matches
Mail list logo
