From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tyler Subject: Re: BUGREPORT: mdadm v2.0-devel - can't create array using version 1 superblock, possibly related to previous bugreport Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 04:38:33 -0700 Message-ID: <427762B9.1000802@dtbb.net> References: <42775D47.4000805@dtbb.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <42775D47.4000805@dtbb.net> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: neilb@cse.unsw.edu.au Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Possibly useful information I forgot to include, that was in dmesg, just after trying the create with the version 1 superblock, cat /proc/mdstat shows/showed no raid devices active: md: could not bd_claim hdb. md: md_import_device returned -16 Tyler wrote: > When i try to create any raid5/raid6 array with --metadata 1 or > --metadata 1.0, it simply spits out a response saying /dev/hdX is > busy... X being whichever drive i listed as an array member first on > the list of drives. 1.x.0 doesn't support version 1 superblocks, but > i used it as an example below without the metadata option to show that > creating the raid works fine, and then the same with mdadm v2.0-devel, > they create fine until you add the metadata option. Kernel is > 2.6.12-rc3-mm2. > > First I create an array using v1.9.0 successfully (from system path): > > root@localhost:~/dev/mdadm-2.0-devel-1# mdadm -C -l 5 -n 3 /dev/md0 > /dev/hdb /dev/hdc /dev/hdd > mdadm: array /dev/md0 started. > root@localhost:~/dev/mdadm-2.0-devel-1# mdadm -S /dev/md0 > > Then successfully create an array with default superblock (0.90?) > using v2.0-devel (from current dir): > > root@localhost:~/dev/mdadm-2.0-devel-1# ./mdadm -C -l 5 -n 3 /dev/md0 > /dev/hdb /dev/hdc /dev/hdd > mdadm: /dev/hdb appears to be part of a raid array: > level=5 devices=3 ctime=Tue May 3 11:42:28 2005 > mdadm: /dev/hdc appears to be part of a raid array: > level=5 devices=3 ctime=Tue May 3 11:42:28 2005 > mdadm: /dev/hdd appears to be part of a raid array: > level=5 devices=3 ctime=Tue May 3 11:42:28 2005 > Continue creating array? y > VERS = 9002 > mdadm: array /dev/md0 started. > root@localhost:~/dev/mdadm-2.0-devel-1# ./mdadm -S /dev/md0 > > Then try creating a raid with version 1 superblock, which fails: > > root@localhost:~/dev/mdadm-2.0-devel-1# mdadm -C -l 5 -n 3 --metadata > 1 /dev/md0 /dev/hdb /dev/hdc /dev/hdd > mdadm: /dev/hdb appears to be part of a raid array: > level=5 devices=3 ctime=Tue May 3 11:43:00 2005 > mdadm: /dev/hdc appears to be part of a raid array: > level=5 devices=3 ctime=Tue May 3 11:43:00 2005 > mdadm: /dev/hdd appears to be part of a raid array: > level=5 devices=3 ctime=Tue May 3 11:43:00 2005 > Continue creating array? y > VERS = 9002 > mdadm: ADD_NEW_DISK for /dev/hdb failed: Device or resource busy > > I believe it *could* have something to do with the fact that mdadm > 2.0-devel doesn't detect previously written (and/or blanked) raid > superblocks, look at my previous bugreport I filed a few minutes ago. > Maybe its seeing what the --examine feature shows, that there's an > "active" array on the drive still, hence, being unable to create a new > one. > - > 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 > >