From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans-Peter Jansen Subject: Re: Problem with mdadm 3.2.5 Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 11:58:01 +0100 Message-ID: <12895316.zdg42hPEm0@xrated> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: tarak.anumolu@samsung.com Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Keep ML cc'ed, please. On Donnerstag, 28. M=E4rz 2013 10:31:58 Tarak Anumolu wrote: > Hi Mr Peter > Actually we are trying to implement RAID for an embedded device [NVR-= Network > Video Recorder]. For our device we need to have two partitions. > Its a device structure in our legacy code. > It's complicated to change into one partition so we are using the exi= sting > thing in our implementation.=20 > We will consider your suggestion to use LVM for making partitions. Better partition your harddisks beforehand, eg.=20 sda1, sda2 sdb1, sdb2 =2E.. and create two mds: md0: sda1, sdb1 md1: sda2, sdb2 =46or partitioning, you can do it once, and use sfdisk to copy partitio= n tables=20 over, eg.: fdisk /dev/sda sfdisk -d /dev/sda | sfdisk /dev/sdb What others said about the metadata version is still relevant. Cheers, Pete > Thanks for the response > Tarak > =20 > =20 > =20 > =20 > =20 > ------- Original Message ------- > Sender : Hans-Peter Jansen > Date : Mar 28, 2013 18:45 (GMT+09:00) > Title : Re: Problem with mdadm 3.2.5 > =20 >=20 > On Donnerstag, 28. M=E4rz 2013 06:36:03 Tarak Anumolu wrote: > > Hi > >=20 > > FYI, We followed the below steps and At the end you can see the pro= blem > > with the file system. >=20 > Tarak, could you do me a flavor, and reread, what I've already writte= n last > time? Then, attempt to answer the single question below, please. >=20 > > RAID operation on 8 harddisks each of size 1TB with 7 harddisks as = raid > > devices and 1 hard disk as spare device got succeed. > >=20 > > #parted -s /dev/md0 print > > Model: Linux Software RAID Array (md) > > Disk /dev/md0: 6001GB > > Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B > > Partition Table: gpt > > Number Start End Size File system Name Flags > > > > 1 1049kB 60.0GB 60.0GB xfs primary > > 2 60.0GB 6001GB 5941GB xfs primary > > > > Then We create 2 partitions md0p1 and md0p2. > >=20 > > #cat /proc/partitions > > major minor #blocks name > > > > 31 0 8192 mtdblock0 > > 31 1 131072 mtdblock1 > > 8 0 976762584 sda > > 8 1 976760832 sda1 > > 8 16 976762584 sdb > > 8 17 976760832 sdb1 > > 8 32 976762584 sdc > > 8 33 976760832 sdc1 > > 8 48 976762584 sdd > > 8 49 976760832 sdd1 > > 8 64 976762584 sde > > 8 65 976760832 sde1 > > 8 80 976762584 sdf > > 8 81 976760832 sdf1 > > 8 96 976762584 sdg > > 8 97 976760832 sdg1 > > 8 112 976762584 sdh > > 8 113 976760832 sdh1 > > 9 0 5860563456 md0 > > 259 0 58604544 md0p1 > > 259 1 5801957376 md0p2 >=20 > Why do you insist in creating partitions in an already partitioned de= vice? >=20 > Just do: >=20 > mkfs.xfs /dev/md0 > mount /dev/md0 /mnt >=20 > and be done. It *is* that easy. >=20 > md0p1 and md0p2 are obsolete in this scenario. If you need a more > complicated setup, check out lvm. >=20 > Pete -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html