From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Neil Brown Subject: RE: Software raid0 will crash the file-system, when each disk is 5TB Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 14:32:11 +1000 Message-ID: <17995.56011.742143.418388@notabene.brown> References: <659F626D666070439A4A5965CD6EBF406836C6@gazelle.ad.endace.com> <6bffcb0e0705151629j78920ca2r9337dccdfc1bb6a9@mail.gmail.com> <17994.19043.771733.453896@notabene.brown> <659F626D666070439A4A5965CD6EBF406B31C5@gazelle.ad.endace.com> <17995.42562.870806.396617@notabene.brown> <659F626D666070439A4A5965CD6EBF406B33ED@gazelle.ad.endace.com> <17995.49602.427417.500049@notabene.brown> <659F626D666070439A4A5965CD6EBF406B3428@gazelle.ad.endace.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Michal Piotrowski" , "Ingo Molnar" , , , To: "Jeff Zheng" Return-path: Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:48873 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752277AbXEQEcb (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 May 2007 00:32:31 -0400 In-Reply-To: message from Jeff Zheng on Thursday May 17 Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Thursday May 17, Jeff.Zheng@endace.com wrote: > I tried the patch, same problem show up, but no bug_on report > > Is there any other things I can do? > What is the nature of the corruption? Is it data in a file that is wrong when you read it back, or does the filesystem metadata get corrupted? Can you try the configuration that works, and sha1sum the files after you have written them to make sure that they really are correct? My thought here is "maybe there is a bad block on one device, and the block is used for data in the 'working' config, and for metadata in the 'broken' config. Can you try a degraded raid10 configuration. e.g. mdadm -C /dev/md1 --level=10 --raid-disks=4 /dev/first missing \ /dev/second missing That will lay out the data in exactly the same place as with raid0, but will use totally different code paths to access it. If you still get a problem, then it isn't in the raid0 code. Maybe try version 1 metadata (mdadm --metadata=1). I doubt that would make a difference, but as I am grasping at straws already, it may be a straw woth trying. NeilBrown