Vagrant Cascadian <vagr...@debian.org> ezt írta (időpont: 2020. jan. 17., Pén 23:42):
> On 2019-11-12, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > > Gábor Boskovits <boskov...@gmail.com> skribis: > > > >>> + mdadm --create /dev/md0 --verbose --level=stripe --raid-devices=2 > >>> /dev/vdb2 /dev/vdb3 > >>> mdadm: chunk size defaults to 512K > >>> mdadm: Defaulting to version 1.2 metadata > >>> [ 13.890586] md/raid0:md0: cannot assemble multi-zone RAID0 with > >>> default_layout setting > >>> [ 13.894691] md/raid0: please set raid0.default_layout to 1 or 2 > >>> [ 13.896000] md: pers->run() failed ... > >>> mdadm: RUN_ARRAY failed: Unknown error 524 > >>> [ 13.901603] md: md0 stopped. > >>> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- > >>> > >>> Anyone knows what it takes to “set raid0.default_layout to 1 or 2”? > >>> > >> > >> On kernel 5.3.4 and above the > >> raid0.default_layout=2 kernel boot paramter should be set. We should > >> generate our grub configuration accordingly. > > So, this might be sort of a tangent, but I'm wondering why you're > testing raid0 (striping, for performance+capacity at risk of data loss) > instead of raid1 (mirroring, for redundancy, fast reads, slow writes, > half capacity of storage), or another raid level with more disks (raid5, > raid6, raid10). raid1 would be the simplest to switch the code to, since > it uses only two disks. > > > The issue triggering this bug might be a non-issue on other raid levels > that in my mind might make more sense for rootfs. Or maybe people have > use-casese for rootfs on raid0 that I'm too uncreative to think of? :) > I often see raid 10 as root. I believe it might make sense to test that setup. > > > live well, > vagrant >
