Re: 2.6.23.1: mdadm/raid5 hung/d-state

2007-11-08 Thread Carlos Carvalho
Jeff Lessem ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote on 6 November 2007 22:00: >Dan Williams wrote: > > The following patch, also attached, cleans up cases where the code looks > > at sh->ops.pending when it should be looking at the consistent > > stack-based snapshot of the operations flags. > >I tried thi

Re: telling mdadm to use spare drive.

2007-11-08 Thread Richard Scobie
Janek Kozicki wrote: Richard Scobie said: (by the date of Thu, 08 Nov 2007 08:13:19 +1300) What kernel and RAID level is this? If it's RAID 1, I seem to recall there was a relatively recently fixed bug for this. debian etch, stock install Linux 2.6.18-5-k7 #1 SMP i686 GNU/Linux The p

Re: telling mdadm to use spare drive.

2007-11-08 Thread Janek Kozicki
Richard Scobie said: (by the date of Thu, 08 Nov 2007 08:13:19 +1300) > What kernel and RAID level is this? > > If it's RAID 1, I seem to recall there was a relatively recently fixed > bug for this. debian etch, stock install Linux 2.6.18-5-k7 #1 SMP i686 GNU/Linux The problem was with was

Re: Was: [RFC PATCH 2.6.23.1] md: add dm-raid1 read balancing

2007-11-08 Thread Goswin von Brederlow
Rik van Riel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 17:28:37 +0100 > Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Maybe you need more parameter: > > Generally a bad idea, unless you can come up with sane defaults (which > do not need tuning 99% of the time) or you can derive the

Re: 2.6.23.1: mdadm/raid5 hung/d-state

2007-11-08 Thread Dan Williams
On 11/8/07, Bill Davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jeff Lessem wrote: > > Dan Williams wrote: > > > The following patch, also attached, cleans up cases where the code > > looks > > > at sh->ops.pending when it should be looking at the consistent > > > stack-based snapshot of the operations flag

Re: Software raid - controller options

2007-11-08 Thread Bill Davidsen
Lyle Schlueter wrote: Hello, I just started looking into software raid with linux a few weeks ago. I am outgrowing the commercial NAS product that I bought a while back. I've been learning as much as I can, suscribing to this mailing list, reading man pages, experimenting with loopback devices s

Re: 2.6.23.1: mdadm/raid5 hung/d-state

2007-11-08 Thread Bill Davidsen
Jeff Lessem wrote: Dan Williams wrote: > The following patch, also attached, cleans up cases where the code looks > at sh->ops.pending when it should be looking at the consistent > stack-based snapshot of the operations flags. I tried this patch (against a stock 2.6.23), and it did not work fo

Re: Was: [RFC PATCH 2.6.23.1] md: add dm-raid1 read balancing

2007-11-08 Thread Bill Davidsen
Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Konstantin Sharlaimov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 10:15 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: I wonder if there shouldn't be a way to turn this off (or if there already is one). Or more generaly an option to say what is "near". Specifical

Re: Was: [RFC PATCH 2.6.23.1] md: add dm-raid1 read balancing

2007-11-08 Thread Bill Davidsen
Rik van Riel wrote: On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 17:28:37 +0100 Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Maybe you need more parameter: Generally a bad idea, unless you can come up with sane defaults (which do not need tuning 99% of the time) or you can derive these parameters automatic

Re: Was: [RFC PATCH 2.6.23.1] md: add dm-raid1 read balancing

2007-11-08 Thread Rik van Riel
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 17:28:37 +0100 Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Maybe you need more parameter: Generally a bad idea, unless you can come up with sane defaults (which do not need tuning 99% of the time) or you can derive these parameters automatically from the RAID configurati

Building a new raid6 with bitmap does not clear bits during resync

2007-11-08 Thread Goswin von Brederlow
Hi, I have created a new raid6: md0 : active raid6 sdb1[0] sdl1[5] sdj1[4] sdh1[3] sdf1[2] sdd1[1] 6834868224 blocks level 6, 512k chunk, algorithm 2 [6/6] [UU] [>] resync = 21.5% (368216964/1708717056) finish=448.5min speed=49808K/sec bitmap: 204/204 p

Re: Was: [RFC PATCH 2.6.23.1] md: add dm-raid1 read balancing

2007-11-08 Thread Goswin von Brederlow
Konstantin Sharlaimov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 10:15 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >> I wonder if there shouldn't be a way to turn this off (or if there >> already is one). >> >> Or more generaly an option to say what is "near". Specifically I would >> like to teac

[PATCH] raid5: fix unending write sequence

2007-11-08 Thread Dan Williams
From: Dan Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> handling stripe 7629696, state=0x14 cnt=1, pd_idx=2 ops=0:0:0 check 5: state 0x6 toread read write f800ffcffcc0 written check 4: state 0x6 toread read write f800fd

Re: 2.6.23.1: mdadm/raid5 hung/d-state

2007-11-08 Thread Justin Piszcz
On Thu, 8 Nov 2007, BERTRAND Joël wrote: BERTRAND Joël wrote: Chuck Ebbert wrote: On 11/05/2007 03:36 AM, BERTRAND Joël wrote: Neil Brown wrote: On Sunday November 4, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: # ps auxww | grep D USER PID %CPU %MEMVSZ RSS TTY STAT START TIME COMMAND ro

Re: 2.6.23.1: mdadm/raid5 hung/d-state

2007-11-08 Thread BERTRAND Joël
BERTRAND Joël wrote: Chuck Ebbert wrote: On 11/05/2007 03:36 AM, BERTRAND Joël wrote: Neil Brown wrote: On Sunday November 4, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: # ps auxww | grep D USER PID %CPU %MEMVSZ RSS TTY STAT START TIME COMMAND root 273 0.0 0.0 0 0 ?

Re: Was: [RFC PATCH 2.6.23.1] md: add dm-raid1 read balancing

2007-11-08 Thread Konstantin Sharlaimov
On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 10:15 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > I wonder if there shouldn't be a way to turn this off (or if there > already is one). > > Or more generaly an option to say what is "near". Specifically I would > like to teach the raid1 layer that I have 2 external raid boxes with a

Re: Raid5 assemble after dual sata port failure

2007-11-08 Thread David Greaves
Chris Eddington wrote: > > Hi, Hi > > While on vacation I had one SATA port/cable fail, and then four hours > later a second one fail. After fixing/moving the SATA ports, I can > reboot and all drives seem to be OK now, but when assembled it won't > recognize the filesystem. That's unusual - if