You can request backports at
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UbuntuBackports
Unfortunately such a major package upgrade does not qualify for a Stable
Release Update.
Please do not reopen this bug, but instead follow the Backports request
procedure as linked above.
** Also affects: mdadm (Ubunt
fermulator@fermmy-server:~$ cat /etc/issue
Ubuntu 10.04.4 LTS \n \l
fermulator@fermmy-server:~$ uname -a
Linux fermmy-server 2.6.32-49-generic-pae #111-Ubuntu SMP Thu Jun 20 21:44:04
UTC 2013 i686 GNU/Linux
fermulator@fermmy-server:~$ mdadm --version
mdadm - v2.6.7.1 - 15th October 2008
--
You r
I'm re-opening this defect. It was marked as a duplicate of bug #603582,
that bug was resolved, but it didn't back-port to 10.04 (lucid!) Still
running 10.04.04 LTS
** This bug is no longer a duplicate of bug 603582
Please merge mdadm 3.1.4-1 (main) from Debian stable (main)
--
You received t
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 603582 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/603582
** This bug has been marked a duplicate of bug 603582
Please merge mdadm 3.1.4-1 (main) from Debian stable (main)
* You can subscribe to bug 603582 by following this link:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubunt
I'm testing the changes now and will upload after that. It would be
great if we can start a conversation with debian if they can take some
of our patches as it seems to be a pretty large delta and e.g. the
degrated support is something that they probably want as well.
--
Please upgrade to a non-o
Jools,
I am trying to sort this out, and another similar thread came to life
today - 603582. It looks like you have both done the same work. Are
you aware of his work, what is the difference? Is this duplicated
effort?
It seems like it would be better for our cause (and admittedly any pre-
rel
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 4:40 AM, Jools Wills wrote:
>
> the complexity is mostly down to handling hotplugging events correctly
> during bootup and so on.
Indeed. I have a box with 48 disks (on 6 controllers) in a number of
MD arrays and stock 10.04 can't assemble them during bootup, although
it m
>What versions is your PPA good for?
It is for lucid. will also work on maverick. Don't use it on Karmic.
>It seems like virtually all of the complexity is in init.d scripts and
udev rules to have things happen automatically. If you were willing to
just do an assemble manually and mount, or in a
Jools, I think I about to take the plunge, but would like to ask a few
questions first. I have been reading all of the mdadm wiki doc,
manpages, scripts, rules, etc. until I am just beginning to *think* that
I understand the problem somewhat, and am coming back around to the fact
that you have don
I'm sorry to report that I experienced the same kernel panic with the
ubuntu kernel, both generic and server flavors. Guess I'm stuck with
dmraid for now ... or just move to SuSE (which works with mdadm 3.0.3).
--
Please upgrade to a non-outdated version
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/495370
You
Is there much chance of a updated version of mdadm for 11.04? I am going
to want to migrate my RAID5 to RAID6 soon, and I am thinking of just
switching to Debian, as I am not technically competent enough to install
a newer version into Ubuntu myself, and I would rather use a supported
version.
--
I'm used the mdadm packages for i386/amd64 directly from debian/squeeze
without problems in 10.04 and 10.10. I think it's time for Canonical to
move. But this is not a problem for me anymore. I changend my
distribution to debian/squeeze after that.
--
Please upgrade to a non-outdated version
http
Thanks, I'll try it in a test system to see if I can migrate from dmraid
to mdadm before I break my main system. I tried the same scenario with
debian and it failed to initialize the matrix. After some tinkering I
got it to assemble the matrix but when trying to mount the volume I
ended up with a n
Funnily enough I just updated a machine to maverick with it to test, and
it worked fine. btw i put it on a PPA
https://launchpad.net/~jools/+archive/mdadm if you are interested (apt-
add-repository ppa:jools/mdadm). note the version is slightly different
from the one i had before to make it more co
Hi Jools,
Do you think it is safe to build and install you package also on
maverick ? I'm trying to ditch dmraid in favor of mdadm 3 which supports
Intel Matrix metadata, and so far ubuntu isn't much help with it's
outdated package.
Thanks,
Cristian
--
Please upgrade to a non-outdated version
h
Hi Jools
Thanks for updating the package for Lucid. I have installed it without any
issues. I attach a log of the output of dpkg.
** Attachment added: "Output of "sudo dpkg -i mdadm_3.1.4-1_i386.deb""
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/mdadm/+bug/495370/+attachment/1684740/+files/mdadm
Glad it's working for you. In regards to the device renaming, it's
because it didn't recognise the array as belonging to the machine so it
assembled it as md127 to not conflict with any other arrays. Please see
http://www.spinics.net/lists/raid/msg30175.html
You probably want to update your mdadm
Hi Jools. Thanks very much for the packages. I wanted to migrate a RAID
5 to RAID 6 on 10.04 and you saved the day. I too would like to see this
picked up for a 10.04 backport or the like. :)
I was thrown off a bit when the device was renamed after
installing/restarting, but I sorted it out. My co
Just to follow up, I am now running my 3.1.4 package on my fileserver.
Would be interested to know if anyone else is using it, whilst we wait
for an official mdadm update.
--
Please upgrade to a non-outdated version
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/495370
You received this bug notification because
I finally got around to doing some upgrades on my fileserver. Thought
about switching back to debian, but I thought for now, I'll just get my
mdadm package working again properly on lucid.
http://malus.exotica.org.uk/~buzz/mdadm/lucid/
binaries for x86 are there.
you can build from source with dp
I plan on running 10.04 until a few months after the *next* LTS is
released. I don't know how to interpret what I see here. Will the
process result in a newer/better stable mdadm being released for 10.04
at some point? If so or if maybe, how far out is that likely to be?
Thanks.
--
Please upgr
Yes it is a karmic package. Ii get a chance I could upgrade it to lucid.
Your fix is probably fine though. What we need though is someone as part
of ubuntu to maintain this though. I will never put ubuntu on a software
raid machine again :/
--
Please upgrade to a non-outdated version
https://bugs
It seems that the file "65-mdadm.vol_id.rules" in "/lib/udev/rules.d/"
was used by mdadm in Karmic
(http://packages.ubuntu.com/karmic/i386/mdadm/filelist), and changed in
Lucid to "65-mdadm-blkid.rules" with the fixing of Bug #493772.
I'm guessing your package is based on the Karmic version of mda
Woops... Too late :). It's in the process of syncing right now...
But as mentioned earlier, the data I'm going to put on the RAID
partition resides on a second, non-RAID partition. So as far as I can
tell I'm not risking anything.
But I _would_ appreciate you taking a look at it though...
The onl
Shouldn't happen. Might be safest right now to use the standard package
until I have time to take a look.
--
Please upgrade to a non-outdated version
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/495370
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
I just tried to install your package. I received an error, which was
this:
cp: cannot stat `/lib/udev/rules.d/65-mdadm.vol_id.rules': No such file
or directory
at the very end of the installation process. Not sure whether it has any
significance.
--
Please upgrade to a non-outdated version
http
Cool. I'll give it a whirl as well then. I have backups of my data on a
non-RAID partition anyway.
I must admit that I was surprised as well, when I saw that Lucid shipped
with a 20 month old build of this component. Wouldn't this mean that the
Server edition uses this version as well? If that's t
I have not adapted a debian package to lucid, rather upgraded the ubuntu
package to a newer version and fixed some bugs. The package works fine
for me at least. Not sure about issue 26. I'd have to have a look. I'm
recently considering to "upgrade" to debian though on my system, as
ubuntu is lettin
I see. Thanks for the heads up.
How would you rate the reliability of your package? Would you recommend
that I just stick with the version in the repos unless I'm feeling
adventurous, or would you say it's relatively safe to use your package?
I guess you'd be the one to know if you've touched some
yes its dangerous. debian most likely has completely difference
initramfs scripts. you could leave your machine unbootable. If you want
a newer version you can try my packages
http://malus.exotica.org.uk/~buzz/mdadm/
--
Please upgrade to a non-outdated version
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/495
Would it be completely crazy to try to install mdadm 3.0.3-2 from Debian
squeeze in Lucid?:
http://packages.debian.org/squeeze/mdadm
Well I just tried it. It did spit out an error:
r...@runescomp:~/Desktop$ sudo dpkg -i mdadm_3.0.3-2_i386.deb
Selecting previously deselected package mdadm
Err .. this ticket needs some love.
Its a shame that lucid still has mdadm 2.6
What can be done to get the most recent version available to lucid users
through ppa or backport and into the next ubuntu release?
--
Please upgrade to a non-outdated version
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/495370
Yo
32 matches
Mail list logo
