* raid superblock @ 2004-09-08 17:41 rich turner 0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: rich turner @ 2004-09-08 17:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-raid if i wanted to dd off the raid superblock, where would i find it on the disk or partition? i realize there are tools to read the superblock and output it in a readable format, but i would like to have it in raw format for formatting on my own. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* RAID superblock.... @ 2002-03-10 13:28 Rogier Wolff 2002-03-10 23:34 ` Neil Brown 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Rogier Wolff @ 2002-03-10 13:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: mingo, Linux kernel mailing list, viro Hi, The MD code I see doing: 488 sb_offset = calc_dev_sboffset(rdev->dev, rdev->mddev, 1); 489 rdev->sb_offset = sb_offset; 490 fsync_dev(dev); 491 set_blocksize (dev, MD_SB_BYTES); 492 bh = bread (dev, sb_offset / MD_SB_BLOCKS, MD_SB_BYTES); where sb_offset is calculated as: 290 if (blk_size[MAJOR(dev)]) 291 size = blk_size[MAJOR(dev)][MINOR(dev)]; Now, for aguments sake, I have a 4k disk. I'd expect the size to be 4 (1k blocks, according to the comment near the definition of blk_size). Thus the "bread" would effectively try to read the block at offset 4k. That would be past the end of my mini-disk, right? I would have expected a "-1" in there somewhere, to get the last block of the dev, and not the block just past the end of the drive. Anyway on the old machine, I still cannot find the raid superblock by hand, but the drives now mount, so the kernel must have been able to locate them somehow...... The machine is still running 2.4.16 + IDE patches for 48 bit addressing. The working machine is an 850MHz PIII w/384Mb RAM, the non-working machine is an AMD 1800+ MP w/1G RAM (with another one of those processors sitting idle close by)... Roger. -- ** R.E.Wolff@BitWizard.nl ** http://www.BitWizard.nl/ ** +31-15-2137555 ** *-- BitWizard writes Linux device drivers for any device you may have! --* * There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots. * There are also old, bald pilots. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: RAID superblock.... 2002-03-10 13:28 RAID superblock Rogier Wolff @ 2002-03-10 23:34 ` Neil Brown 0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Neil Brown @ 2002-03-10 23:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rogier Wolff; +Cc: Linux kernel mailing list On Sunday March 10, R.E.Wolff@BitWizard.nl wrote: > > Hi, > > The MD code I see doing: > > > 488 sb_offset = calc_dev_sboffset(rdev->dev, rdev->mddev, 1); > 489 rdev->sb_offset = sb_offset; > 490 fsync_dev(dev); > 491 set_blocksize (dev, MD_SB_BYTES); > 492 bh = bread (dev, sb_offset / MD_SB_BLOCKS, MD_SB_BYTES); > > > where sb_offset is calculated as: > > 290 if (blk_size[MAJOR(dev)]) > 291 size = blk_size[MAJOR(dev)][MINOR(dev)]; You missed: if (persistent) size = MD_NEW_SIZE_BLOCKS(size); where MD_NEW_SIZE_BLOCKS is #define MD_NEW_SIZE_BLOCKS(x) ((x & ~(MD_RESERVED_BLOCKS - 1)) - MD_RESERVED_BLOCKS) and there you have your "-1". > Anyway on the old machine, I still cannot find the raid superblock by > hand, but the drives now mount, so the kernel must have been able to > locate them somehow...... The superblock should be located between 64K and 128K from the end of the device, on a 64K boundary. > NeilBrown ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <20001025171255.26384.qmail@web6104.mail.yahoo.com>]
[parent not found: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0010261534490.9868-100000@server.serve.me.nl>]
* Re: RAID superblock [not found] ` <Pine.LNX.4.21.0010261534490.9868-100000@server.serve.me.nl> @ 2000-10-26 16:19 ` Wakko Warner 2000-10-29 10:40 ` Peter Samuelson 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Wakko Warner @ 2000-10-26 16:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Igmar Palsenberg; +Cc: linux-kernel > > Hi, > > After I create a RAID setup on the drives,The > > superblock will be generated at the end of the drives. > > If I move these drives to other linux system, will > > this > > system recognise the RAID setup without reconfiguring > > the Linux ? > > If the CHS / LBA settings are the same, and the kernel is the same : Yes. While this subject is fresh, what would be wrong with using the entire drive as opposed to creating a partition and adding the partition to the raid? -- Lab tests show that use of micro$oft causes cancer in lab animals - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: RAID superblock 2000-10-26 16:19 ` Wakko Warner @ 2000-10-29 10:40 ` Peter Samuelson 2000-10-29 13:36 ` Igmar Palsenberg 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Peter Samuelson @ 2000-10-29 10:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Wakko Warner; +Cc: Igmar Palsenberg, linux-kernel [Wakko Warner] > While this subject is fresh, what would be wrong with using the > entire drive as opposed to creating a partition and adding the > partition to the raid? Does it autodetect an entire drive? The autodetect logic for partitions looks at the 'partition type' byte, which of course doesn't exist for a whole drive. Just a thought .. I don't run RAID here. Peter - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: RAID superblock 2000-10-29 10:40 ` Peter Samuelson @ 2000-10-29 13:36 ` Igmar Palsenberg 2000-10-29 12:52 ` Wakko Warner 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Igmar Palsenberg @ 2000-10-29 13:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Peter Samuelson; +Cc: Wakko Warner, linux-kernel On Sun, 29 Oct 2000, Peter Samuelson wrote: > [Wakko Warner] > > While this subject is fresh, what would be wrong with using the > > entire drive as opposed to creating a partition and adding the > > partition to the raid? > > Does it autodetect an entire drive? The autodetect logic for > partitions looks at the 'partition type' byte, which of course doesn't > exist for a whole drive. > > Just a thought .. I don't run RAID here. A good one. I seriously doubt that it indeed will detect drives. The're not partitions, the're drives. Don't think the current RAID code handles entire drives. Igmar - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: RAID superblock 2000-10-29 13:36 ` Igmar Palsenberg @ 2000-10-29 12:52 ` Wakko Warner 0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Wakko Warner @ 2000-10-29 12:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Igmar Palsenberg; +Cc: Peter Samuelson, linux-kernel > > [Wakko Warner] > > > While this subject is fresh, what would be wrong with using the > > > entire drive as opposed to creating a partition and adding the > > > partition to the raid? > > > > Does it autodetect an entire drive? The autodetect logic for > > partitions looks at the 'partition type' byte, which of course doesn't > > exist for a whole drive. Actually, I don't think it does. I've not booted into single user mode (where the raid hasn'tbeen setup yet) to see. > > Just a thought .. I don't run RAID here. > > A good one. I seriously doubt that it indeed will detect drives. The're > not partitions, the're drives. > > Don't think the current RAID code handles entire drives. Autodetect, probably not. But it doesn't seem to have any problems with it as far as usability. -- Lab tests show that use of micro$oft causes cancer in lab animals - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-09-08 17:41 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-09-08 17:41 raid superblock rich turner
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-03-10 13:28 RAID superblock Rogier Wolff
2002-03-10 23:34 ` Neil Brown
[not found] <20001025171255.26384.qmail@web6104.mail.yahoo.com>
[not found] ` <Pine.LNX.4.21.0010261534490.9868-100000@server.serve.me.nl>
2000-10-26 16:19 ` Wakko Warner
2000-10-29 10:40 ` Peter Samuelson
2000-10-29 13:36 ` Igmar Palsenberg
2000-10-29 12:52 ` Wakko Warner
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.