From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luca Berra Subject: Re: array always resyncs on boot Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 08:47:23 +0100 Message-ID: <20081201074723.GA18651@maude.comedia.it> References: <4931B2C5.5060403@openhardware.net> <20081130080752.GA19919@maude.comedia.it> <493261C9.8090208@openhardware.net> <493327F5.5010704@openhardware.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <493327F5.5010704@openhardware.net> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 06:55:33PM -0500, Tom Walsh wrote: > Tom Walsh wrote: >> Luca Berra wrote: >>> On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 04:23:17PM -0500, Tom Walsh wrote: >>>> I need help! >>> >>> i'll try :( >>>> I've overhauled the software, replaced the operating system >>>> innumerable times with several Mandriva distros: 2008, 2008.1, 2009. >>>> Removed the Mandriva kernel and compiled a stock 2.6.27.7 from >>>> ftp.kernel.org. Ran the Seagate SeaTools on all four drives, no >>>> errors. Ran the Western Digital Date Lifeguard on the two drives, no >>>> errors. Changed from raid5 to raid10, still resyncs on boot. >>> >>> https://qa.mandriva.com/show_bug.cgi?id=40023 >>> >>> read the whole of it. >>> >> >> Ahhh, yes! Thank you! >> >> >> I was reverting back to the 2008.0 distro and building a 2.6.27.7 kernel >> when I saw your reply. Reading the bugzilla makes a whole lot of sense of >> what I was seeing in the dmesg (re: md not finishing before the raid10 >> module started). Finishing out that build, I found that the 2.6.27.7 >> stock kernel would boot and NOT resync the array. That proves, to me, >> something is wrong with the overall Mandriva 2009.0 system (as well as >> 2008.1 which also fails miserably). It is not limited to mandriva, redhat has the same 'feature' and afair ubuntu was also the first to implement it. > Just a follow-up. Add the internal bitmap to the arrays has cured the > problem (mdadm --grow --bitmap=internal ). This is definitely a > feature that I will consider adding to the existing raid5 arrays that I > maintain out in the wild. > > Is this a non-destructive thing to do to a working array? Grow it with > adding the bitmap? I did not make each member partition of the arrays > consume the remainder of the drives, but left 50..150 blocks unused in them > (found various 250Meg drives do not all have the same block counts between > manufacturers). It is a non destructive operation, it actually uses the space between end of data and start of superblock. it does not care about 'free' space on the drive. L. -- Luca Berra -- bluca@comedia.it Communication Media & Services S.r.l. /"\ \ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN X AGAINST HTML MAIL / \