Hi,
We had a strange thing running on 2.2.16 raid-1 soft
on ide.
8 days ago we saw the timeout on hdc. We could not raidhotadd /dev/hdc
and nothing worked on hdc. So we decided to change the hdc
(hd broken) We did it last friday and the reconstruction was easy.
Today we realized this:
the data
Hi all
I've just compiled my 2.2.16 kernel to support raid1 and raid5.
I'm trying to set up both type of raid on my system, one raid1 and one
raid5, but I get an strange error .. :?
I'm using the raidtools package supplied with redhat 6.2 (I've compiled it
myself)
Her
On Sun, 9 Jul 2000, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> It has to be patched, so that it reads/writes on sparc64 the same on-disk
> format as does the kernel (ie. although the utilities may be 32bit, it has
> to write several entries using long long).
> Red Hat 6.x quota should work correctly, if you are usin
On Sat, Jul 08, 2000 at 11:42:14PM -0400, Gustav wrote:
> I've started to notice strange entries in my quota tables on the
> one of my RAID-1 partitions on a sparc64 2.2.16-RAID box. Basically,
> the following entries are appearing, more every few days:
What quota package are
I've started to notice strange entries in my quota tables on the
one of my RAID-1 partitions on a sparc64 2.2.16-RAID box. Basically,
the following entries are appearing, more every few days:
[root@durden /root]# repquota /usr
Block limits
- 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
June 01, 2000 11:40 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: linux raid mailing list
Subject:Re: strange error with lilo: "open /tmp/dev.0: No such device"?
Whenever I made the same LILO upgrade, I found that I had to forcibly remove
the old LILO first (very carefully) or it would refu
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
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: strange error with lilo: "open /tmp/dev.0: No such device"?
I'm right at the end of a similar process.
check the owner and permissions of /tmp (and other directories) on your
raid
compare it to the original on the IDE
Re: strange error with lilo: "open /tmp/dev.0: No such device"?
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: &q
nt: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 2:25 PM
Subject: strange error with lilo: "open /tmp/dev.0: No such device"?
> I am having troubles with lilo. When I run lilo (with or without options),
> it gives errors:
>
> open /tmp/dev.0: No such device
>
> I have no clues.
I'm right at the end of a similar process.
check the owner and permissions of /tmp (and other directories) on your raid
compare it to the original on the IDE drive. copying with graphical tools
like KDE will screw up the ownership and things like suid. I had problems
with that.
If your copied wi
I am having troubles with lilo. When I run lilo (with or without options),
it gives errors:
open /tmp/dev.0: No such device
I have no clues.
Here is what i did:
I first installed OS (Redhat 6.2) on an IDE drive, create RAID1 on 2 extra
SCSI disks, and mounted. I copied the root files (/) onto
[ Tuesday, February 29, 2000 ] Christian Robottom Reis wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2000, Peter Pregler wrote:
> > All is fine but during reconstruction I get a few syslog-messages that I
> > simply cannot believe are true. The message in question are:
> >
> > Feb 12 11:31:52 kludge kernel: md: serial
On Mon, 14 Feb 2000, Peter Pregler wrote:
> All is fine but during reconstruction I get a few syslog-messages that I
> simply cannot believe are true. The message in question are:
>
> Feb 12 11:31:52 kludge kernel: md: serializing resync, md8 has overlapping
> physical units with md9!
Just mean
cal units with md9!
This message happens for _all_ raid-arrays that need reconstruction, i.e.
md1, md2, m6 all conflict with md9 (and also with md8). I have attached
the partition tables and the relevant kernel log. But unless I did not
overlook something really strange I can see no physical overlap.
Nope. That wasn't the problem either. The drives were split
1,2,3,8,9,10,11
with 1-8 being in a RAID5 array. It's something that goes on between
the
NCR and the AIC driver. I really don't think it's to do with IDs or
anything
physical. Either these two are duking it out in the background over
On Wed, 9 Feb 2000, Yan-Fa Li wrote:
[snip]
> no not obvious, but the external storage device, a Rack Storage 12,
> assigns the addresses statically 0-3, 8-15. The SCSI card is on ID 7.
> All drives are accessible when put on the same controller. When split
> across two controllers, only the fir
Hi,
no not obvious, but the external storage device, a Rack Storage 12,
assigns
the addresses statically 0-3, 8-15. The SCSI card is on ID 7. All
drives
are accessible when put on the same controller. When split across two
controllers, only the first four are accessible from the adaptec, even
On Wed, 9 Feb 2000, Yan-Fa Li wrote:
[snip]
> As a test, I disabled the NCR and moved the boot drive to the AIC7XXX.
> Now all drives are there and everything is just fine. I can see all
> 8 hard drives without any problems, fdisk lets me access them and
> partition them without incident and I ca
Hi,
I just discovered a weird "bug"/"interaction" between the ncr53c8xx,
aic7xxx scsi modules when it comes to disk allocation. Has anyone
else seen this ?
I have a server, HP Netserver LPR and it boots from the NCR chipset.
It had one disk, a 9GB 10KRPM Cheetah - HP firmware.
The aic7xxx is a
Hi,
On one of our servers we are recently experiencing quite a strange things:
- when I do shutdown -r now it says it goes down for reboot and nothing happens
- when I run dmesg there is this message
Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address cac41
current->tss.cr3 = 07d0e
> What does this means ?
It would thrash the disk heads to keep moving from one partition to another
between each disk operation, so when re-synching disks, it ensures that only
one thread is using a particular disk (spindle) at a time.
> Where is the overlapping ?
Not really overlapping, rat
On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, christophe leroy wrote:
> What does this means ? Where is the overlapping ?
>
> Christophe (Please CC answers to me, I'm not subscribed to the list)
>
> Dec 9 10:14:11 localhost kernel: md: serializing resync, md1 has
> overlapping physical units with md2!
It's saying that
What does this means ? Where is the overlapping ?
Christophe (Please CC answers to me, I'm not subscribed to the list)
Dec 9 10:14:11 localhost kernel: md: serializing resync, md1 has
overlapping ph
ysical units with md2!
Dec 9 10:14:11 localhost kernel: md: serializing resync, md0 has
overlap
Hi,
The first lines (bug: sector %d exists, bh_new...) probably do mean that
there is a kernel bug lurking somewhere. They tell us that the RAID-5
layer received two requests for the same physical sector on the RAID
array pointed to by two different buffer head structures at the same
time (that
On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 12:11:33PM +0800, Deanne O'Connell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am running redhat 6.0, with kernel 2.2.13 all patched up to run raid, on a
> dual celeron 400 system.
> I have 3x 18.2 gig atlas 4 lvd drives all on one cable, configured as
> follows;
[snip]
Ok, RAID usually works
Hi all,
I am running redhat 6.0, with kernel 2.2.13 all patched up to run raid, on a
dual celeron 400 system.
I have 3x 18.2 gig atlas 4 lvd drives all on one cable, configured as
follows;
1st gigsystem boot and files (non raid)
250 megswap
1.5gig/dev/md0 in raid5 for /var
the rest,
Our machine:
Siemens Celsius 620 Dual-P3 (disabled SMP for testing, problem didn't go
away), 256MB RAM, aic7xxx (7895, I think, TCQ enabled); Kernel 2.2.12,
applied raid0145-19990824-2.2.11 patch (ignored fs.h warning),
raidtools-19990824-0.90.
Our problem:
When I mkraid /dev/md0 (raid1),
Hi,
I got this error in dmesg and am not sure what it means for my array. Can
anyone tell me what this is and how I could fix it. The array hasn't
crashed yet.
raid0_map bug: hash->zone0==NULL for block 1701344288
Bad md_map in ll_rw_block
raid0_map bug: hash->zone0==NULL for block 2037544046
hye gurus,
I notice a strange thing with a seagate ST32155W.
The linux box was roughtly powerred off (thanx to bob who unpluged the
alimentation), and during the next boot I got a time out to the SCSI
BioS detection, and during the linux boot process, I get a "Spinning up
disk .&q
dev/md0.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Friday, July 30, 1999 11:43 AM
> Subject: strange RAID problem - RAID doesn't work at boot
>
>
> >
> >Ok, I a
Ok, I am setting up a RAID box, a PII-350 with an ASUS P2B-S mobo (adaptec
7000 chip). I found some document on the web that explained how to set up
software RAID correctly (I think it was a HOWTO, but it seems to have gone
missing, I cant find it anywhere).
I got it working with kernel 2.2.5
day I get this strange
message written to my console:
raid5: bug: stripe->bh_new[4], sector 1773744 exists
raid5: bh 05bb6798, bh_new 03b54b98
The array is still running and I don't perceive any problems
with the server. But what does the message mean? Is it a problem
I should be concern
34 matches
Mail list logo
