On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 19:55 -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 16:46 -0500, Alberto Alonso wrote:
> > Regardless of the fact that it is not MD's fault, it does make
> > software raid an invalid choice when combined with those drivers. A
> > single disk failure within a RAID5 array b
On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 00:30 +0200, Gabor Gombas wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 02:52:59PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
>
> > In fact, no you can't. I know, because I've created a device that had
> > both but wasn't a raid device. And it's matching partner still existed
> > too. What you are tal
On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 11:20 -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> > * When using lilo to boot from a raid device, it automatically installs
> > itself to the mbr, not to the partition. This can not be changed. Only
> > 0.90 and 1.0 superblock types are supported because lilo doesn't
> > understand the of
On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 16:46 -0500, Alberto Alonso wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 15:00 -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> >
> > This isn't an md problem, this is a low level disk driver problem. Yell
> > at the author of the disk driver in question. If that driver doesn't
> > time things out and retur
Alberto Alonso wrote:
What hardware do you use? I was trying to compile a list of known
configurations capable to detect and degrade properly.
To date I have not yet had a SATA based array drive go faulty - all mine
have been PATA arrays on Intel or AMD MB controllers, which as per your
experi
Has anybody used the RocketRAID 2220 to build "hardware"
raid and lived through failures?
As some of you may know from my previous posts, I've been
having problems with software raid. Unfortunately, this was
the only card available to me to add to my server so I
haven't been able to test anything
On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 15:00 -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
>
> This isn't an md problem, this is a low level disk driver problem. Yell
> at the author of the disk driver in question. If that driver doesn't
> time things out and return errors up the stack in a reasonable time,
> then it's broken. Md
off topic, could you resubmit the alignment issue patch to list and see
if tomof accept. he needs a patch inlined in email. it is found and
fixed by you, so had better you post it (instead of me). thx.
On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 15:29 +0200, BERTRAND Joël wrote:
> Dan Williams wrote:
> > On 10/24/07,
On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 14:41 -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> Actually, after doing some research, here's what I've found:
> * When using grub2, there is supposedly already support for raid/lvm
> devices. However, I do not know if this includes version 1.0, 1.1, or
> 1.2 superblocks. I intend to find
On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 09:50 +0200, Luca Berra wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 03:26:33PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> >On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 11:15 +0200, Luca Berra wrote:
> >> On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 02:40:06AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> >> >The partition table is the single, (mostly) universal
On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 10:00 +0200, Luca Berra wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 02:52:59PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> >On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 11:54 +0200, Luca Berra wrote:
> >> On Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 09:11:57AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> >> just apply some rules, so if you find a partition tabl
Dan Williams wrote:
On 10/27/07, BERTRAND Joël <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dan Williams wrote:
Can you collect some oprofile data, as Ming suggested, so we can maybe
see what md_d0_raid5 and istd1 are fighting about? Hopefully it is as
painless to run on sparc as it is on IA:
opcontrol --start
Alberto Alonso wrote:
After 4 different array failures all due to a single drive
failure I think it would really be helpful if the md code
timed out the driver.
Hi Alberto,
Sorry you've been having so much trouble.
For interest, can you tell us what drives and controllers are involved?
I've
On 10/27/07, BERTRAND Joël <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan Williams wrote:
> > Can you collect some oprofile data, as Ming suggested, so we can maybe
> > see what md_d0_raid5 and istd1 are fighting about? Hopefully it is as
> > painless to run on sparc as it is on IA:
> >
> > opcontrol --start --
Alberto Alonso wrote:
On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 18:12 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Depending on the hardware you can still access a different disk while
another one is reseting. But since there is no timeout in md it won't
try to use any other disk while one is stuck.
That is exactly what
Doug Ledford wrote:
On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 10:18 -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
[___snip___]
Actually, after doing some research, here's what I've found:
* When using lilo to boot from a raid device, it automatically installs
itself to the mbr, not to the partition. This can not be changed
On Sat, Oct 27, 2007 at 09:50:55AM +0200, Luca Berra wrote:
>> Because you didn't stripe align the partition, your bad.
> :)
> by default fdisk misalignes partition tables
> and aligning them is more complex than just doing without.
Why use fdisk then? Use parted instead. It's not the kernel's fa
why you zeroing hdd ? should you clear sdd?
On 10/26/07, Greg Cormier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can someone help me understand superblocks and MD a little bit?
>
> I've got a raid5 array with 3 disks - sdb1, sdc1, sdd1.
>
> --examine on these 3 drives shows correct information.
>
>
> However,
Dan Williams wrote:
On 10/24/07, BERTRAND Joël <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello,
Any news about this trouble ? Any idea ? I'm trying to fix it, but I
don't see any specific interaction between raid5 and istd. Does anyone
try to reproduce this bug on another arch than sparc64 ? I
On Sat, Oct 27, 2007 at 12:20:12AM +0200, Gabor Gombas wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 02:41:56PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
* When using lilo to boot from a raid device, it automatically installs
itself to the mbr, not to the partition. This can not be changed. Only
0.90 and 1.0 superblock ty
> "Doug" == Doug Ledford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Doug> This isn't an md problem, this is a low level disk driver
Doug> problem. Yell at the author of the disk driver in question. If
Doug> that driver doesn't time things out and return errors up the
Doug> stack in a reasonable time, then
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 07:06:46PM +0200, Gabor Gombas wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 06:22:27PM +0200, Gabor Gombas wrote:
You got the ordering wrong. You should get userspace support ready and
accepted _first_, and then you can start the
flamew^H^H^H^H^H^Hdiscussion to make the in-kernel part
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 02:52:59PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 11:54 +0200, Luca Berra wrote:
On Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 09:11:57AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
just apply some rules, so if you find a partition table _AND_ an md
superblock at the end, read both and you can tell i
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 06:53:40PM +0200, Gabor Gombas wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 11:15:13AM +0200, Luca Berra wrote:
on a pc maybe, but that is 20 years old design.
partition table design is limited because it is still based on C/H/S,
which do not exist anymore.
The MS-DOS format is not
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 03:26:33PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 11:15 +0200, Luca Berra wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 02:40:06AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
>The partition table is the single, (mostly) universally recognized
>arbiter of what possible data might be on the disk
25 matches
Mail list logo
