From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luca Berra Subject: Re: Raid-10 mount at startup always has problem Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 22:29:27 +0100 Message-ID: <20071029212927.GA24635@percy.comedia.it> References: <46E4A39C.8040509@amfes.com> <46E4A5F0.9090407@sauce.co.nz> <46E4A7C3.1040902@amfes.com> <471F5542.3020504@amfes.com> <471FA485.6010705@tmr.com> <47202D17.3040000@amfes.com> <1193294406.10336.76.camel@firewall.xsintricity.com> <472576A5.3030603@amfes.com> <20071029081802.GB15475@percy.comedia.it> <1193672839.10336.443.camel@firewall.xsintricity.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1193672839.10336.443.camel@firewall.xsintricity.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 11:47:19AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: >On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 09:18 +0100, Luca Berra wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 10:59:01PM -0700, Daniel L. Miller wrote: >> >Doug Ledford wrote: >> >>Anyway, I happen to *like* the idea of using full disk devices, but the >> >>reality is that the md subsystem doesn't have exclusive ownership of the >> >>disks at all times, and without that it really needs to stake a claim on >> >>the space instead of leaving things to chance IMO. >> >> >> >I've been re-reading this post numerous times - trying to ignore the >> >burgeoning flame war :) - and this last sentence finally clicked with me. >> > >> I am sorry Daniel, when i read Doug and Bill, stating that your issue >> was not having a partition table, i immediately took the bait and forgot >> about your original issue. > >I never said *his* issue was lack of partition table, I just said I >don't recommend that because it's flaky. The last statement I made maybe i misread you but Bill was quite clear. >about his issue was to ask about whether the problem was happening >during initrd time or sysinit time to try and identify if it was failing >before or after / was mounted to try and determine where the issue might >lay. Then we got off on the tangent about partitions, and at the same >time Neil started asking about udev, at which point it came out that >he's running ubuntu, and as much as I would like to help, the fact of >the matter is that I've never touched ubuntu and wouldn't have the >faintest clue, so I let Neil handle it. At which point he found that >the udev scripts in ubuntu are being stupid, and from the looks of it >are the cause of the problem. So, I've considered the initial issue >root caused for a bit now. It seems i made an idiot of myself by missing half of the thread, and i even knew ubuntu was braindead in their use of udev at startup, since a similar discussion came up on the lvm or the dm-devel mailing list (that time iirc it was about lvm over multipath) >> like udev/hal that believes it knows better than you about what you have >> on your disks. >> but _NEITHER OF THESE IS YOUR PROBLEM_ imho > >Actually, it looks like udev *is* the problem, but not because of >partition tables. you are right. L. -- Luca Berra -- bluca@comedia.it Communication Media & Services S.r.l. /"\ \ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN X AGAINST HTML MAIL / \