From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bill Davidsen Subject: Re: is this raid5 OK ? Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 21:00:38 -0400 Message-ID: <460DB2B6.1040207@tmr.com> References: <237230840.20070329193857@kaneda.iguw.tuwien.ac.at> <17932.22575.558925.535963@notabene.brown> <460CF7EF.1000203@kaneda.iguw.tuwien.ac.at> <460D3A9F.7010800@tmr.com> <460D55AB.1080309@kaneda.iguw.tuwien.ac.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Justin Piszcz Cc: Rainer Fuegenstein , Neil Brown , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Justin Piszcz wrote: > > On Fri, 30 Mar 2007, Rainer Fuegenstein wrote: > >> Bill Davidsen wrote: >> >>> This still looks odd, why should it behave like this. I have created >>> a lot of arrays (when I was doing the RAID5 speed testing thread), >>> and never had anything like this. I'd like to see dmesg to see if >>> there was an error reported regarding this. >>> >>> I think there's more going on, the original post showed the array as >>> up rather than some building status, also indicates some issue, >>> perhaps. What is the partition type of each of these partitions? >>> Perhaps there's a clue there. >> >> partition type is FD (linux raid autodetect) on all disks. >> >> here's some more info: >> the hardware is pretty old, an 800MHz ASUS board with AMD cpu and an >> extra onboard promise IDE controller with two channels. the server >> was working well with a 60 GB hda disk (system) and a single 400 GB >> disk (hde) for data. kernel was 2.6.19-1.2288.fc5xen0. >> >> when I added 3 more 400 GB disks (hdf to hdh) and created the raid5, >> the server crashed (rebooted, freezed, ...) as soon as there was more >> activity on the raid (kernel panics indicating trouble with >> interrupts, inpage errors etc.) I then upgraded to a 400W power >> supply, which didn't help. I went back to two single (non-raid) 400 >> GB disks - same problem. >> >> finally, I figured out that the non-xen kernel works without >> problems. I'm filling the raid5 since several hours now and the >> system is still stable. >> >> I haven't tried to re-create the raid5 using the non-xen kernel, it >> was created using the xen kernel. maybe xen could be the problem ? >> >> I was wrong in my last post - OS is actually fedora core 5 (sorry >> for the typo) >> >> PCI: Disabling Via external APIC routing > > I will note there is the ominous '400GB' lockup bug with certain promise > controllers. > > With the Promise ATA/133 controllers in some configurations you will get > a DRQ/lockup no matter what, replacing with an ATA/100 card and no > issues. But I see you have a 20265 with is an ATA/100 promise/chipset. > > Just out of curiosity have you tried writing or running badblocks on > each parition simultaenously, this would simulate (somewhat) the I/O > sent/received to the drives during a RAID5 rebuild. These are all things which could be related, but any clue why the non-xen kernel works? -- bill davidsen CTO TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979