I see the problem now. And John Robinson was nearly there.
The problem is that after assembling the container /dev/md/imsm,
mdadm needs to assemble the RAID1, but doesn't find the
container /dev/md/imsm to assemble it from.
That is because of the
DEVICE partitions
line.
A container is not a pa
On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 00:10:50 -0500
Mike Viau wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 14:17:18 +1100 wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 13:32:47 +1100 wrote:
> > > > > ./mdadm -Ss
> > > > >
> > > > > mdadm: stopped /dev/md127
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ./mdadm -Asvvv
> > > > >
> > > > > mdadm
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 22:03:41 -0500
Mike Viau wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 13:32:47 +1100 wrote:
> > > ./mdadm -Ss
> > >
> > > mdadm: stopped /dev/md127
> > >
> > >
> > > ./mdadm -Asvvv
> > >
> > > mdadm: looking for devices for further assembly
> > > mdadm: no RAID superblock on /dev/dm-3
>
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 21:05:40 -0500
Mike Viau wrote:
> ./mdadm -Ss
>
> mdadm: stopped /dev/md127
>
>
> ./mdadm -Asvvv
>
> mdadm: looking for devices for further assembly
> mdadm: no RAID superblock on /dev/dm-3
> mdadm: /dev/dm-3 has wrong uuid.
> want UUID-084b969a:0808f5b8:6c784fb7:6265938
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 19:56:10 -0500
Mike Viau wrote:
> I am running the same version, from a Debian Squeeze package which I presume
> is the same.
>
> mdadm -V
>
> mdadm - v3.1.4 - 31st August 2010
Yes, should be identical to what I am running.
>
> >
> > and see how that works.
> > Just
> >
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 17:36:23 -0500
Mike Viau wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 14:15:14 +1100 wrote:
> >
> > This looks wrong. mdadm should be looking for the container as listed in
> > mdadm.conf and it should find a matching uuid on sda and sdb, but it
> > doesn't.
> >
> > Can you:
> >
> > md
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 21:44:10 -0500
Mike Viau wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 12:26:47 +1100 wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 16:21:22 +1100 wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 01:50:42 -0500 Mike wrote:
>
> How does one fix the problem of not having the array not starting at
> >
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 01:39:39 +
John Robinson wrote:
> On 17/11/2010 01:26, Neil Brown wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 20:02:17 -0500
> > Mike Viau wrote:
> [...]
> >> DEVICE partitions
> >> HOMEHOST
> >> ARRAY metadata=imsm UUID=084b969a:0808f5
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 20:02:17 -0500
Mike Viau wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 16:21:22 +1100 wrote:
> > > On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 01:50:42 -0500 Mike wrote:
> > >
> > > How does one fix the problem of not having the array not starting at boot?
> > >
> >
> > To be able to answer that one would need
On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 01:50:42 -0500
Mike Viau wrote:
> Again, How does one fix the problem of not having the array not starting at
> boot?
>
To be able to answer that one would need to know exactly what is in the
initramfs. And unfortunately all distros are different and I'm not
particularly f
On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 01:01:47 -0500
Mike Viau wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I am trying to re-setup my fake-raid (RAID1) volume with LVM2 like setup
> previously. I had been using dmraid on a Lenny installation which gave me
> (from memory) a block device like /dev/mapper/isw_xxx_ and also a
On Monday January 5, jpis...@lucidpixels.com wrote:
> cc linux-raid
>
> On Mon, 5 Jan 2009, whollyg...@letterboxes.org wrote:
>
> > I think growing my RAID array after replacing all the
> > drives with bigger ones has somehow hosed the array.
> >
> > The system is Etch with a stock 2.6.18 kernel
On Wednesday March 3, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Aha, didn't know that wrinkle: lovely. Mount says:
> /dev/md0 on / type ext3 (rw,errors=remount-ro)
> proc on /proc type proc (rw)
> devpts on /dev/pts type devpts (rw,gid=5,mode=620)
>
> and cat /proc/mounts says:
> rootfs / rootfs rw 0 0
> /dev/r
On Wednesday March 3, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 3 Mar 2004 at 10:40, Neil Brown wrote:
>
> > Wrong.
> > mkfs -t ext3 /dev/md0
> > then mount /dev/md0.
> > Once you have included /dev/hdc1 in an array, don't touch it again -
> > just access the array
14 matches
Mail list logo
