> OnTue, 23 Nov 2010 10:11:29 +1100 wrote:>
> 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 o
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 16:38:49 +1100 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
> > > > > >
> > > >
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 Thu, 18 Nov 2010 12:18:13 +1000 wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I am just starting to use RAID on my systems and it was suggested that I make
> sure my drives were set to raid by: "fdisk -l"
> This should say that the relavent drives are set to "raid auto-detect".
> Gerald
>
>
Where do you check "rai
> 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: looking for devices for further assembly
> > > > mdadm: no RAID superblock o
On Thursday, November 18, 2010 10:11:49 am Neil Brown wrote:
> 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 match
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 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
> > mdadm: /dev/dm-3 has wrong uuid.
> > want UUID-084b969a:0808f5b8:6c784fb
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 Thu, 18 Nov 2010 12:28:47 +1100 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.
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 Thu, 18 Nov 2010 11:11:49 +1100 wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 17:36:23 -0500 Mike Viau wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 14:15:14 +1100
> > >
> > > 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 s
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 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:
>
> mdadm -E /dev/sda /dev/sdb ; cat /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf
>
> so I can compare the
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 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 boot?
>>>
>>> To be able to answer that one would need to know exac
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 12:53:37 +1100 wrote:
> 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=
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:0808f5b8:6c784fb7:62659383
ARRAY /dev/md/OneTB-RAID1-PV container=084b969a:0808f5b8:6c784fb7:62659383
member=0 UUID=ae4a1598:72267ed7:3
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:0808f5b8:6c784fb7:62659383
> >> ARRAY /dev/md/OneTB-RAI
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 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 to know exactly what is in the
> initramfs. And unfortunately all dis
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 Sun, 14 Nov 2010 06:36:00 +1100 wrote:
>> cat /proc/mdstat (showing what mdadm shows/discovers)
>>
>> Personalities :
>> md127 : inactive sda[1](S) sdb[0](S)
>> 4514 blocks super external:imsm
>>
>> unused devices:
>
> As imsm can have several arrays described by one set of metadata, mdadm
>
24 matches
Mail list logo