* Confused about reshape?
@ 2010-05-30 23:29 Leslie Rhorer
2010-05-31 2:54 ` Neil Brown
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Leslie Rhorer @ 2010-05-30 23:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-raid
Am I confused about reshaping a RAID5 to RAID6 array, or is there an
error in the man page? The distro I have on one of my servers - Debian
"Squeeze" - employs mdadm 3.0.3, internally dated Oct. 22, 2009. The man
page that comes with the software specifically says:
-l, --level=
<snip>
Not yet supported with --grow.
Searching the web, however, I find the following link from Aug. 17,
2009:
http://neil.brown.name/blog/20090817000931
In the link, it says:
Now, in mid 2009, we have most of the rest of the reshaping options that had
been planned. These include changing the stripe size, changing the layout
(i.e. where the parity blocks get stored) and reducing the number of
devices.
Changing the layout provides valuable functionality as it is an important
part of converting a RAID5 to a RAID6.
<snip>
Currently supported reshapes
<snip>
RAID5
A RAID5 can change the number of devices, the size of the individual
devices, the chunk size and the layout. A 2 drive RAID5 can be converted to
RAID1, and a 3 or more drive RAID5 can be converted to RAID6.
Since the 3.0.3 version of mdadm was evidently written in October,
and since this link was from August, one would think 3.0.3 should be able to
re-shape a RAID5 to RAID6. If so, the man page (at least for Debian
"Squeeze") is incorrect, and of course fails to offer the syntax for such an
upgrade.
Am I missing something?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Confused about reshape?
2010-05-30 23:29 Confused about reshape? Leslie Rhorer
@ 2010-05-31 2:54 ` Neil Brown
2010-05-31 4:11 ` Leslie Rhorer
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Neil Brown @ 2010-05-31 2:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Leslie Rhorer; +Cc: linux-raid
On Sun, 30 May 2010 18:29:16 -0500
"Leslie Rhorer" <lrhorer@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> Am I confused about reshaping a RAID5 to RAID6 array, or is there an
> error in the man page? The distro I have on one of my servers - Debian
> "Squeeze" - employs mdadm 3.0.3, internally dated Oct. 22, 2009. The man
> page that comes with the software specifically says:
>
> -l, --level=
>
> <snip>
>
> Not yet supported with --grow.
Man page is wrong. Thanks for reporting. Fixed in current .git and will be
in next release.
>
> Searching the web, however, I find the following link from Aug. 17,
> 2009:
>
> http://neil.brown.name/blog/20090817000931
>
> In the link, it says:
>
> Now, in mid 2009, we have most of the rest of the reshaping options that had
> been planned. These include changing the stripe size, changing the layout
> (i.e. where the parity blocks get stored) and reducing the number of
> devices.
>
> Changing the layout provides valuable functionality as it is an important
> part of converting a RAID5 to a RAID6.
>
> <snip>
>
> Currently supported reshapes
>
> <snip>
>
> RAID5
> A RAID5 can change the number of devices, the size of the individual
> devices, the chunk size and the layout. A 2 drive RAID5 can be converted to
> RAID1, and a 3 or more drive RAID5 can be converted to RAID6.
>
> Since the 3.0.3 version of mdadm was evidently written in October,
> and since this link was from August, one would think 3.0.3 should be able to
> re-shape a RAID5 to RAID6. If so, the man page (at least for Debian
> "Squeeze") is incorrect, and of course fails to offer the syntax for such an
> upgrade.
>
> Am I missing something?
The syntax for changing levels is simply:
mdadm --grow /dev/mdX --level=6
This will preserve the number of data disks. If you want to change that (or
anything else) at the same time, you can:
mdadm --grow /dev/mdX --level=6 --raid-disk=8 --chunk-size=1024 --layout=left-asymetric
Thanks,
NeilBrown
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* RE: Confused about reshape?
2010-05-31 2:54 ` Neil Brown
@ 2010-05-31 4:11 ` Leslie Rhorer
2010-05-31 4:50 ` Neil Brown
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Leslie Rhorer @ 2010-05-31 4:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 'Neil Brown'; +Cc: linux-raid
> On Sun, 30 May 2010 18:29:16 -0500
> "Leslie Rhorer" <lrhorer@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Am I confused about reshaping a RAID5 to RAID6 array, or is there an
> > error in the man page? The distro I have on one of my servers - Debian
> > "Squeeze" - employs mdadm 3.0.3, internally dated Oct. 22, 2009. The
> man
> > page that comes with the software specifically says:
> >
> > -l, --level=
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Not yet supported with --grow.
>
> Man page is wrong. Thanks for reporting. Fixed in current .git and will
> be
> in next release.
Oh, you're welcome. Thanks to you for all the great work.
> The syntax for changing levels is simply:
>
> mdadm --grow /dev/mdX --level=6
>
> This will preserve the number of data disks. If you want to change that
> (or
> anything else) at the same time, you can:
>
> mdadm --grow /dev/mdX --level=6 --raid-disk=8 --chunk-size=1024 --
> layout=left-asymetric
I'm a little fuzzy on how the number of member disks can be
maintained while adding additional redundancy. Must the file system(s) be
shrunk so that the total amount of free space on all the members is greater
than the member size? In my situation, that won't work. First of all, I am
using XFS, and I don't think XFS will allow shrinking of the file system.
In any case, however, the file system, which fills the entire array which in
turn uses the entire (unpartitioned) space of each member, is over 93% full.
It's an 8 x 1.5T disk RAID5 array with one spare drive. Or does the --grow
command automatically create a RAID6 array with one missing member? Should
I remove the spare before issuing the command? If so, should I add it along
with the command, something like:
mdadm --grow /dev/md0 --level6 --raid-disk=9 --add /dev/sdi
Or will mdadm automagically write the additional information to the 9th
spare / member disk without me doing anything?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Confused about reshape?
2010-05-31 4:11 ` Leslie Rhorer
@ 2010-05-31 4:50 ` Neil Brown
2010-05-31 5:25 ` Leslie Rhorer
2010-05-31 5:32 ` Leslie Rhorer
0 siblings, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Neil Brown @ 2010-05-31 4:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Leslie Rhorer; +Cc: linux-raid
On Sun, 30 May 2010 23:11:17 -0500
"Leslie Rhorer" <lrhorer@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 30 May 2010 18:29:16 -0500
> > "Leslie Rhorer" <lrhorer@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Am I confused about reshaping a RAID5 to RAID6 array, or is there an
> > > error in the man page? The distro I have on one of my servers - Debian
> > > "Squeeze" - employs mdadm 3.0.3, internally dated Oct. 22, 2009. The
> > man
> > > page that comes with the software specifically says:
> > >
> > > -l, --level=
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > Not yet supported with --grow.
> >
> > Man page is wrong. Thanks for reporting. Fixed in current .git and will
> > be
> > in next release.
>
> Oh, you're welcome. Thanks to you for all the great work.
>
> > The syntax for changing levels is simply:
> >
> > mdadm --grow /dev/mdX --level=6
> >
> > This will preserve the number of data disks. If you want to change that
> > (or
> > anything else) at the same time, you can:
> >
> > mdadm --grow /dev/mdX --level=6 --raid-disk=8 --chunk-size=1024 --
> > layout=left-asymetric
>
> I'm a little fuzzy on how the number of member disks can be
> maintained while adding additional redundancy. Must the file system(s) be
> shrunk so that the total amount of free space on all the members is greater
> than the member size? In my situation, that won't work. First of all, I am
> using XFS, and I don't think XFS will allow shrinking of the file system.
> In any case, however, the file system, which fills the entire array which in
> turn uses the entire (unpartitioned) space of each member, is over 93% full.
> It's an 8 x 1.5T disk RAID5 array with one spare drive. Or does the --grow
> command automatically create a RAID6 array with one missing member? Should
> I remove the spare before issuing the command? If so, should I add it along
> with the command, something like:
>
> mdadm --grow /dev/md0 --level6 --raid-disk=9 --add /dev/sdi
>
> Or will mdadm automagically write the additional information to the 9th
> spare / member disk without me doing anything?
I didn't say that the number of "member disks" is preserved, but the number
of "data disks".
Normally you would have a RAID5 with a spare when you convert to RAID6 so the
spare gets incorporated. This is the most efficient approach.
But if you don't have a spare it will still work.
Just tell mdadm what you want and it will do it, or report that it cannot.
NeilBrown
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* RE: Confused about reshape?
2010-05-31 4:50 ` Neil Brown
@ 2010-05-31 5:25 ` Leslie Rhorer
2010-05-31 5:32 ` Leslie Rhorer
1 sibling, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Leslie Rhorer @ 2010-05-31 5:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 'Neil Brown'; +Cc: linux-raid
> > I'm a little fuzzy on how the number of member disks can be
> > maintained while adding additional redundancy. Must the file system(s)
> be
> > shrunk so that the total amount of free space on all the members is
> greater
> > than the member size? In my situation, that won't work. First of all,
> I am
> > using XFS, and I don't think XFS will allow shrinking of the file
> system.
> > In any case, however, the file system, which fills the entire array
> which in
> > turn uses the entire (unpartitioned) space of each member, is over 93%
> full.
> > It's an 8 x 1.5T disk RAID5 array with one spare drive. Or does the --
> grow
> > command automatically create a RAID6 array with one missing member?
> Should
> > I remove the spare before issuing the command? If so, should I add it
> along
> > with the command, something like:
> >
> > mdadm --grow /dev/md0 --level6 --raid-disk=9 --add /dev/sdi
> >
> > Or will mdadm automagically write the additional information to the 9th
> > spare / member disk without me doing anything?
>
> I didn't say that the number of "member disks" is preserved, but the
> number
> of "data disks".
> Normally you would have a RAID5 with a spare when you convert to RAID6 so
> the
> spare gets incorporated. This is the most efficient approach.
> But if you don't have a spare it will still work.
Ah! I see.
> Just tell mdadm what you want and it will do it, or report that it cannot.
Apriori, I'm always a bit shy of issuing potentially "lethal"
commands. Too many times, I've accidentally told a copmuter to
irretrievably do something other than what I had intended. Indeed, only
last week I accidentally issued a command which wiped the files I meant to
move. Nonetheless, you've done a great job of "goof-proofing" mdadm.
Still, when playing with 10T of data, I'm a bit skittish. :-)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* RE: Confused about reshape?
2010-05-31 4:50 ` Neil Brown
2010-05-31 5:25 ` Leslie Rhorer
@ 2010-05-31 5:32 ` Leslie Rhorer
2010-05-31 5:57 ` Neil Brown
1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Leslie Rhorer @ 2010-05-31 5:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 'Neil Brown'; +Cc: linux-raid
> Just tell mdadm what you want and it will do it, or report that it cannot.
Um, OK, I tried it, and it failed:
Backup:/# mdadm --grow /dev/md0 --level=6
mdadm: no changes to --grow
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Confused about reshape?
2010-05-31 5:32 ` Leslie Rhorer
@ 2010-05-31 5:57 ` Neil Brown
2010-05-31 6:07 ` Leslie Rhorer
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Neil Brown @ 2010-05-31 5:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Leslie Rhorer; +Cc: linux-raid
On Mon, 31 May 2010 00:32:07 -0500
"Leslie Rhorer" <lrhorer@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> > Just tell mdadm what you want and it will do it, or report that it cannot.
>
> Um, OK, I tried it, and it failed:
>
> Backup:/# mdadm --grow /dev/md0 --level=6
> mdadm: no changes to --grow
cat /proc/mdstat ??
mdadm -D /dev/md0 ??
mdadm -V ??
uname -a ??
Maybe add -vv to the --grow
NeilBrown
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* RE: Confused about reshape?
2010-05-31 5:57 ` Neil Brown
@ 2010-05-31 6:07 ` Leslie Rhorer
2010-05-31 6:48 ` Neil Brown
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Leslie Rhorer @ 2010-05-31 6:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 'Neil Brown'; +Cc: linux-raid
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Neil Brown [mailto:neilb@suse.de]
> Sent: Monday, May 31, 2010 12:58 AM
> To: Leslie Rhorer
> Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: Confused about reshape?
>
> On Mon, 31 May 2010 00:32:07 -0500
> "Leslie Rhorer" <lrhorer@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > > Just tell mdadm what you want and it will do it, or report that it
> cannot.
> >
> > Um, OK, I tried it, and it failed:
> >
> > Backup:/# mdadm --grow /dev/md0 --level=6
> > mdadm: no changes to --grow
>
> cat /proc/mdstat ??
> mdadm -D /dev/md0 ??
> mdadm -V ??
> uname -a ??
>
> Maybe add -vv to the --grow
/dev/md0:
Version : 1.02
Creation Time : Sun Jul 12 20:44:02 2009
Raid Level : raid5
Array Size : 10255969024 (9780.85 GiB 10502.11 GB)
Used Dev Size : 1465138432 (1397.26 GiB 1500.30 GB)
Raid Devices : 8
Total Devices : 9
Persistence : Superblock is persistent
Intent Bitmap : Internal
Update Time : Mon May 31 00:44:25 2010
State : active
Active Devices : 8
Working Devices : 9
Failed Devices : 0
Spare Devices : 1
Layout : left-symmetric
Chunk Size : 256K
Name : Backup:0 (local to host Backup)
UUID : 940ae4e4:04057ffc:5e92d2fb:63e3efb7
Events : 987130
Number Major Minor RaidDevice State
0 8 0 0 active sync /dev/sda
1 8 16 1 active sync /dev/sdb
2 8 32 2 active sync /dev/sdc
8 8 48 3 active sync /dev/sdd
4 8 64 4 active sync /dev/sde
5 8 80 5 active sync /dev/sdf
6 8 96 6 active sync /dev/sdg
7 8 112 7 active sync /dev/sdh
9 8 128 - spare /dev/sdi
Backup:/tmp# mdadm -V >> temp
mdadm - v3.0.3 - 22nd October 2009
Backup:/tmp# uname -a
Linux Backup 2.6.32-3-amd64 #1 SMP Wed Feb 24 18:07:42 UTC 2010 x86_64
GNU/Linux
Backup:/tmp# mdadm --grow -vv /dev/md0 --level=6 >> temp
mdadm: no changes to --grow
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* Re: Confused about reshape?
2010-05-31 6:07 ` Leslie Rhorer
@ 2010-05-31 6:48 ` Neil Brown
2010-05-31 6:55 ` Leslie Rhorer
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Neil Brown @ 2010-05-31 6:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Leslie Rhorer; +Cc: linux-raid
On Mon, 31 May 2010 01:07:38 -0500
"Leslie Rhorer" <lrhorer@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Neil Brown [mailto:neilb@suse.de]
> > Sent: Monday, May 31, 2010 12:58 AM
> > To: Leslie Rhorer
> > Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
> > Subject: Re: Confused about reshape?
> >
> > On Mon, 31 May 2010 00:32:07 -0500
> > "Leslie Rhorer" <lrhorer@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Just tell mdadm what you want and it will do it, or report that it
> > cannot.
> > >
> > > Um, OK, I tried it, and it failed:
> > >
> > > Backup:/# mdadm --grow /dev/md0 --level=6
> > > mdadm: no changes to --grow
> >
> > cat /proc/mdstat ??
> > mdadm -D /dev/md0 ??
> > mdadm -V ??
> > uname -a ??
> >
> > Maybe add -vv to the --grow
>
> /dev/md0:
> Version : 1.02
> Creation Time : Sun Jul 12 20:44:02 2009
> Raid Level : raid5
> Array Size : 10255969024 (9780.85 GiB 10502.11 GB)
> Used Dev Size : 1465138432 (1397.26 GiB 1500.30 GB)
> Raid Devices : 8
> Total Devices : 9
> Persistence : Superblock is persistent
>
> Intent Bitmap : Internal
You'll probably need to remove the bitmap for --grow to work... I really
should fix that.
>
> Update Time : Mon May 31 00:44:25 2010
> State : active
> Active Devices : 8
> Working Devices : 9
> Failed Devices : 0
> Spare Devices : 1
>
> Layout : left-symmetric
> Chunk Size : 256K
>
> Name : Backup:0 (local to host Backup)
> UUID : 940ae4e4:04057ffc:5e92d2fb:63e3efb7
> Events : 987130
>
> Number Major Minor RaidDevice State
> 0 8 0 0 active sync /dev/sda
> 1 8 16 1 active sync /dev/sdb
> 2 8 32 2 active sync /dev/sdc
> 8 8 48 3 active sync /dev/sdd
> 4 8 64 4 active sync /dev/sde
> 5 8 80 5 active sync /dev/sdf
> 6 8 96 6 active sync /dev/sdg
> 7 8 112 7 active sync /dev/sdh
>
> 9 8 128 - spare /dev/sdi
>
> Backup:/tmp# mdadm -V >> temp
> mdadm - v3.0.3 - 22nd October 2009
I should have checked when you mention the mdadm version in the first email.
You need at least 3.1.1 to convert RAID5 to RAID6.
NeilBrown
>
> Backup:/tmp# uname -a
> Linux Backup 2.6.32-3-amd64 #1 SMP Wed Feb 24 18:07:42 UTC 2010 x86_64
> GNU/Linux
>
> Backup:/tmp# mdadm --grow -vv /dev/md0 --level=6 >> temp
> mdadm: no changes to --grow
>
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* RE: Confused about reshape?
2010-05-31 6:48 ` Neil Brown
@ 2010-05-31 6:55 ` Leslie Rhorer
2010-05-31 9:12 ` Leslie Rhorer
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Leslie Rhorer @ 2010-05-31 6:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 'Neil Brown'; +Cc: linux-raid
> > Version : 1.02
> > Creation Time : Sun Jul 12 20:44:02 2009
> > Raid Level : raid5
> > Array Size : 10255969024 (9780.85 GiB 10502.11 GB)
> > Used Dev Size : 1465138432 (1397.26 GiB 1500.30 GB)
> > Raid Devices : 8
> > Total Devices : 9
> > Persistence : Superblock is persistent
> >
> > Intent Bitmap : Internal
>
> You'll probably need to remove the bitmap for --grow to work... I really
> should fix that.
OK. That's pretty minor. I'll do that.
> > Update Time : Mon May 31 00:44:25 2010
> > State : active
> > Active Devices : 8
> > Working Devices : 9
> > Failed Devices : 0
> > Spare Devices : 1
> >
> > Layout : left-symmetric
> > Chunk Size : 256K
> >
> > Name : Backup:0 (local to host Backup)
> > UUID : 940ae4e4:04057ffc:5e92d2fb:63e3efb7
> > Events : 987130
> >
> > Number Major Minor RaidDevice State
> > 0 8 0 0 active sync /dev/sda
> > 1 8 16 1 active sync /dev/sdb
> > 2 8 32 2 active sync /dev/sdc
> > 8 8 48 3 active sync /dev/sdd
> > 4 8 64 4 active sync /dev/sde
> > 5 8 80 5 active sync /dev/sdf
> > 6 8 96 6 active sync /dev/sdg
> > 7 8 112 7 active sync /dev/sdh
> >
> > 9 8 128 - spare /dev/sdi
> >
> > Backup:/tmp# mdadm -V >> temp
> > mdadm - v3.0.3 - 22nd October 2009
>
> I should have checked when you mention the mdadm version in the first
> email.
> You need at least 3.1.1 to convert RAID5 to RAID6.
OK. 3.1.2-2 is in "Sid". I don't think it will give the system a
heart attack if I scarf it from there.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* RE: Confused about reshape?
2010-05-31 6:55 ` Leslie Rhorer
@ 2010-05-31 9:12 ` Leslie Rhorer
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Leslie Rhorer @ 2010-05-31 9:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 'Leslie Rhorer', 'Neil Brown'; +Cc: linux-raid
> > You'll probably need to remove the bitmap for --grow to work... I really
> > should fix that.
>
> OK. That's pretty minor. I'll do that.
>
> > > Update Time : Mon May 31 00:44:25 2010
> > > State : active
> > > Active Devices : 8
> > > Working Devices : 9
> > > Failed Devices : 0
> > > Spare Devices : 1
> > >
> > > Layout : left-symmetric
> > > Chunk Size : 256K
> > >
> > > Name : Backup:0 (local to host Backup)
> > > UUID : 940ae4e4:04057ffc:5e92d2fb:63e3efb7
> > > Events : 987130
> > >
> > > Number Major Minor RaidDevice State
> > > 0 8 0 0 active sync /dev/sda
> > > 1 8 16 1 active sync /dev/sdb
> > > 2 8 32 2 active sync /dev/sdc
> > > 8 8 48 3 active sync /dev/sdd
> > > 4 8 64 4 active sync /dev/sde
> > > 5 8 80 5 active sync /dev/sdf
> > > 6 8 96 6 active sync /dev/sdg
> > > 7 8 112 7 active sync /dev/sdh
> > >
> > > 9 8 128 - spare /dev/sdi
> > >
> > > Backup:/tmp# mdadm -V >> temp
> > > mdadm - v3.0.3 - 22nd October 2009
> >
> > I should have checked when you mention the mdadm version in the first
> > email.
> > You need at least 3.1.1 to convert RAID5 to RAID6.
>
> OK. 3.1.2-2 is in "Sid". I don't think it will give the system a
> heart attack if I scarf it from there.
Or maybe it will... The reshape had been going for about 2 hours
when suddenly md tossed out a bunch of garbage and halted the system
entirely. I had to hit the Big Red Switch to bring it back up. Of course
the system complained about an unclean shutdown, yada, yada, yada, but now
the main thing is the array won't assemble. I'm afraid I did something in
retrospect rather foolish. I put the backup file in /tmp, and upon reboot,
Linux wiped the /tmp directory, and mdadm refuses to restart the re-shape
without the file. What can I do to get the array re-shape to continue?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-05-31 9:12 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2010-05-30 23:29 Confused about reshape? Leslie Rhorer
2010-05-31 2:54 ` Neil Brown
2010-05-31 4:11 ` Leslie Rhorer
2010-05-31 4:50 ` Neil Brown
2010-05-31 5:25 ` Leslie Rhorer
2010-05-31 5:32 ` Leslie Rhorer
2010-05-31 5:57 ` Neil Brown
2010-05-31 6:07 ` Leslie Rhorer
2010-05-31 6:48 ` Neil Brown
2010-05-31 6:55 ` Leslie Rhorer
2010-05-31 9:12 ` Leslie Rhorer
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox