mdadm segfault

mdadm segfault

[Michael Stumpf]

mdadm 1.8.1 is segfaulting on red hat linux 7.3.  Kernel is 2.4.18smp5.  
Happened when I try to assemble a 3 drive array with only 2 drives.

Not important to me; I just downgraded to 1.2.0 and it worked like a 
champ, but I figured I'd throw that out there as an FYI.



--------------------------------------------
My mailbox is spam-free with ChoiceMail, the leader in personal and corporate anti-spam solutions. Download your free copy of ChoiceMail from www.choicemailfree.com

Re: mdadm segfault

[Neil Brown]

On Thursday December 16, mjstumpf@pobox.com wrote:
> mdadm 1.8.1 is segfaulting on red hat linux 7.3.  Kernel is 2.4.18smp5.  
> Happened when I try to assemble a 3 drive array with only 2 drives.
> 
> Not important to me; I just downgraded to 1.2.0 and it worked like a 
> champ, but I figured I'd throw that out there as an FYI.
> 

Why don't people read the release notes?

 From "ANNOUNCE-1.8.1":

   This is a "development" release of mdadm.  It should *not* be
   considered stable and should be used primarily for testing.
   The current "stable" version is 1.8.0.


I guess I should release a "1.9.0" and use "1.8.2 ..." for devel
releases.

NeilBrown

Re: mdadm segfault

[Robin Bowes]

Neil Brown wrote:
> 
> Why don't people read the release notes?

Do you really need to ask? :)

> 
>  From "ANNOUNCE-1.8.1":
> 
>    This is a "development" release of mdadm.  It should *not* be
>    considered stable and should be used primarily for testing.
>    The current "stable" version is 1.8.0.
> 
> 
> I guess I should release a "1.9.0" and use "1.8.2 ..." for devel
> releases.

It might be an idea to create "dev" and "production" branches.

Personally, I read the original 1.8.1 announcement on this list and 
stayed with 1.8.0, but I can see how others, accustomed to the usual 
high quality of your releases would think that 1.8.1 would be as stable 
as 1.8.0.

How about 1.x.y-dev or 1.x.y-bzz (eg b20 b=beta)?

R.
-- 
http://robinbowes.com

Re: mdadm segfault

[AndyLiebman]

I also found that 1.8.1 was segfaulting with Mandrake 10. I figured the 
problem was that I had created the RAID 0 array with 1.5 or 1.6 (don't remember 
which). I had all the drives from the array, but it didn't find them to Assemble 
them. 

From a cursory glance at the info about 1.8.1, quite a few things changed. 
Maybe not just a "dot release" from 1.8.0. I sort of installed it by accident -- 
I meant to install 1.8.0 -- which for me is working great. 

Andy Liebman

>In a message dated 12/16/2004 5:36:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
>mjstumpf@pobox.com writes:
>mdadm 1.8.1 is segfaulting on red hat linux 7.3.  Kernel is 2.4.18smp5.  
>Happened when I try to assemble a 3 drive array with only 2 drives.
>
>Not important to me; I just downgraded to 1.2.0 and it worked like a 
>champ, but I figured I'd throw that out there as an FYI.

mdadm segfault

[Frank van Maarseveen]

Maybe it's fixed already but just in case... trying to assemble an array
by UUID without any mdadm.conf segfaulted, e.g.:

	mdadm -A --uuid=d764947c:875b3b25:d10330b1:eec6e325 /dev/md10 -c partitions

-- 
Frank

Re: mdadm segfault

[Henrik Holst]

Frank van Maarseveen wrote:
> Maybe it's fixed already but just in case... trying to assemble an array
> by UUID without any mdadm.conf segfaulted, e.g.:
> 
> 	mdadm -A --uuid=d764947c:875b3b25:d10330b1:eec6e325 /dev/md10 -c partitions
> 

You probably want to include version of mdadm as well as your kernel
version.

Please post your /proc/partitions file as well.

--
Henrik Holst

Re: mdadm segfault

[Frank van Maarseveen]

On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 03:29:21PM +0200, Henrik Holst wrote:
> Frank van Maarseveen wrote:
> > Maybe it's fixed already but just in case... trying to assemble an array
> > by UUID without any mdadm.conf segfaulted, e.g.:
> > 
> > 	mdadm -A --uuid=d764947c:875b3b25:d10330b1:eec6e325 /dev/md10 -c partitions
> > 
> 
> You probably want to include version of mdadm as well as your kernel
> version.
> 
> Please post your /proc/partitions file as well.

Just tried it out on FC4 (mdadm - v1.11.0 - 11 April 2005) and it seems
fixed. Apparently I stumbled on a very old version of mdadm.

-- 
Frank