From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Greaves Subject: Re: Help - this doesn't look good... Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 19:20:00 +0000 Message-ID: <41A8D360.50402@dgreaves.com> References: <200411271822.iARIMhN24103@www.watkins-home.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200411271822.iARIMhN24103@www.watkins-home.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Guy Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Ta Guy Normally I'd have no concerns using a resyncing array. However, on the safe/sorry principle - I didn't mount it since I got the strange conflict from mdadm and indeed mdstat. As much as anything this is an 'odd behaviour FYI' for Neil I let it resync and checked the fs - all OK :) David Guy wrote: >If your only concern is the re-sync, then no problem. >An array is usable while it is re-syncing. > >However, I don't know why it is re-syncing. Maybe the failed attempt to >start the array is at fault. I don't know if this is normal or not. > >Guy > >-----Original Message----- >From: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org >[mailto:linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of David Greaves >Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 8:05 AM >To: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org >Subject: Help - this doesn't look good... > >Sigh, > >I'm having what might be xfs/nfsd conflicts and thought I'd reboot into >an old 2.6.6 kernel which used to be stable. > >Of course it spotted the fd partitions and tried to start the array. >It failed (the old kernel didn't have a driver for the new controller so >some devices were missing) > >However when I came back to 2.6.9 I get the rather conflicting status >shown below. > >It already mounted (xfs) but I unmounted quite quickly. >Can this do any harm? > >Should I leave it to complete? >Can I safely remount? > >My worry is that the kernel and mdadm think all the devices are 'up' and >so may write to them and upset the resync (I suspect it thinks /dev/sdf1 >is dirty since that wasn't there under 2.6.6) > >cu:~# mdadm --detail /dev/md0 >/dev/md0: > Version : 00.90.01 > Creation Time : Sun Nov 21 21:36:49 2004 > Raid Level : raid5 > Array Size : 1225543680 (1168.77 GiB 1254.96 GB) > Device Size : 245108736 (233.75 GiB 250.99 GB) > Raid Devices : 6 > Total Devices : 7 >Preferred Minor : 0 > Persistence : Superblock is persistent > > Update Time : Thu Nov 25 12:51:46 2004 > State : dirty, resyncing > Active Devices : 6 >Working Devices : 7 > Failed Devices : 0 > Spare Devices : 1 > > Layout : left-symmetric > Chunk Size : 4096K > > Rebuild Status : 0% complete > > UUID : 44e121b0:6e3422b0:4d67f451:51df5ae0 > Events : 0.35500 > > Number Major Minor RaidDevice State > 0 8 1 0 active sync /dev/sda1 > 1 8 17 1 active sync /dev/sdb1 > 2 8 33 2 active sync /dev/sdc1 > 3 8 49 3 active sync /dev/sdd1 > 4 3 65 4 active sync /dev/hdb1 > 5 8 81 5 active sync /dev/sdf1 > > 6 8 65 - spare /dev/sde1 >cu:~# >cu:~# cat /proc/mdstat >Personalities : [linear] [raid0] [raid1] [raid5] [raid6] >md0 : active raid5 sdf1[5] sde1[6] sdd1[3] sdc1[2] sdb1[1] sda1[0] hdb1[4] > 1225543680 blocks level 5, 4096k chunk, algorithm 2 [6/6] [UUUUUU] > [>....................] resync = 0.3% (905600/245108736) >finish=304.3min speed=13369K/sec >unused devices: > >- >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 > >- >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 > > >