* Re: Size limitation?
2010-01-01 19:57 Size limitation? Michael McLagan
@ 2010-01-01 21:28 ` Kristleifur Daðason
2010-01-01 21:31 ` Kristleifur Daðason
2010-01-01 21:32 ` Joe Landman
` (3 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Kristleifur Daðason @ 2010-01-01 21:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-raid; +Cc: mmclagan+reply
On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Michael McLagan <mmclagan@invlogic.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm trying to set up a large array but isn't working. I tried
> Googling size limits, etc and came up empty.
>
> The problem is that with 10 drives (300GB SCSI), the array is coming up
> with 500GB of space?!? I did an experiment and when the array size
> exceeds 2TB, it fails/wraps?
>
Looked at the mdadm output and ... Wow that's strange. You aren't
supposed to be hitting any size limits there as far as I know, and I
can't see that you're doing anything wrong - The "wraparound" just
shouldn't be happening in my opinion. (But I'm a RAID rookie so don't
take that as an expert judgement. Perhaps rather as some solidarity in
a strange situation.) Anyway ...
> Is there a solution (simple or otherwise) for this? The machine runs
> 2.6.29.5 (anything later causes the machine to lock up :( ). I'm not
> sure if mdadm or the kernel is the problem either.
>
That's kinda scary. Is this some unusual architecture or hardware
configuration? I don't want to take this off-topic if you have
determined the kernel version to be a fixed variable, but: Do you know
why a newer kernel won't go? To me, newer-kernels-crashing indicates
an irregularity under the hood.
> Any suggestions appreciated
Try upgrading mdadm. Either latest 2.x or 3.1.x. What the hey, try
both. It's quite easy to compile mdadm yourself, and its for-stability
releases are usually that: More stable. I've built mdadm a number of
times when fooling around and it has always been quite good to me.
(I.e. no exploding-in-face.)
Good luck!
-- Kristleifur
--
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] 13+ messages in thread* Re: Size limitation?
2010-01-01 21:28 ` Kristleifur Daðason
@ 2010-01-01 21:31 ` Kristleifur Daðason
0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Kristleifur Daðason @ 2010-01-01 21:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-raid; +Cc: mmclagan+reply
On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Kristleifur Daðason
<kristleifur@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Michael McLagan <mmclagan@invlogic.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm trying to set up a large array but isn't working. I tried
>> Googling size limits, etc and came up empty.
>>
>> Any suggestions appreciated
>
Ah, one more thing,
also try creating an actual filesystem on the weirdly "small" array.
Who knows, the size might only be misreported to mdadm. If you do get
the correct size of filesystem, well, at least it's useful to know.
I'd be uneasy about deploying it into production in that state, but
it's good info to have.
-- Kristleifur
--
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] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Size limitation?
2010-01-01 19:57 Size limitation? Michael McLagan
2010-01-01 21:28 ` Kristleifur Daðason
@ 2010-01-01 21:32 ` Joe Landman
2010-01-01 21:42 ` Roger Heflin
` (2 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Joe Landman @ 2010-01-01 21:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: mmclagan+reply; +Cc: linux-raid
Michael McLagan wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm trying to set up a large array but isn't working. I tried
> Googling size limits, etc and came up empty.
>
> The problem is that with 10 drives (300GB SCSI), the array is coming up
> with 500GB of space?!? I did an experiment and when the array size
> exceeds 2TB, it fails/wraps?
Is this a 32 bit machine?
uname -a
might help.
--
Joseph Landman, Ph.D
Founder and CEO
Scalable Informatics Inc.
email: landman@scalableinformatics.com
web : http://scalableinformatics.com
http://scalableinformatics.com/jackrabbit
phone: +1 734 786 8423 x121
fax : +1 866 888 3112
cell : +1 734 612 4615
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* Re: Size limitation?
2010-01-01 19:57 Size limitation? Michael McLagan
2010-01-01 21:28 ` Kristleifur Daðason
2010-01-01 21:32 ` Joe Landman
@ 2010-01-01 21:42 ` Roger Heflin
2010-01-01 23:00 ` Leslie Rhorer
2010-01-01 23:30 ` Zdenek Behan
4 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Roger Heflin @ 2010-01-01 21:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: mmclagan+reply; +Cc: linux-raid
Michael McLagan wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm trying to set up a large array but isn't working. I tried
> Googling size limits, etc and came up empty.
>
> The problem is that with 10 drives (300GB SCSI), the array is coming up
> with 500GB of space?!? I did an experiment and when the array size
> exceeds 2TB, it fails/wraps?
>
> Is there a solution (simple or otherwise) for this? The machine runs
> 2.6.29.5 (anything later causes the machine to lock up :( ). I'm not
> sure if mdadm or the kernel is the problem either.
>
> Any suggestions appreciated (please CC me on replies).
>
> Michael
>
>
Just guessing it is a mdadm bug.
I have a 32-bit 2.6.27.5 machine with mdadm 2.6.7 and mine is showing
an array size of 4.5tb correctly, so 2.6.29 should be just fine.
Check mdadm --version and see what version that you have of that, you
might also mount up the array and do "cat /proc/mdstat" and see what
size the kernel reports.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* RE: Size limitation?
2010-01-01 19:57 Size limitation? Michael McLagan
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2010-01-01 21:42 ` Roger Heflin
@ 2010-01-01 23:00 ` Leslie Rhorer
2010-01-01 23:30 ` Zdenek Behan
4 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Leslie Rhorer @ 2010-01-01 23:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: mmclagan+reply, linux-raid
> Hello,
>
> I'm trying to set up a large array but isn't working. I tried
> Googling size limits, etc and came up empty.
>
> The problem is that with 10 drives (300GB SCSI), the array is coming up
> with 500GB of space?!? I did an experiment and when the array size
> exceeds 2TB, it fails/wraps?
>
> Is there a solution (simple or otherwise) for this? The machine runs
> 2.6.29.5 (anything later causes the machine to lock up :( ). I'm not
> sure if mdadm or the kernel is the problem either.
>
> Any suggestions appreciated (please CC me on replies).
Well, I know the 0.90 superblock limits the COMPONENT devices to
2TB, but I know for a fact it doesn't limit the array itself to 2TB, at
least not using mdadm 2.6.7.2, because I have created arrays much larger
than 2T using a 0.90 superblock. There is also a limit of 28 component
devices using a 0.90 superblock, but you are nowhere near that limit.
Nonetheless, why not try using a 1.x superblock, instead? It can't hurt to
try. What version of mdadm are you using? I'm using a 2.6.26-2 kernel, so
I would think 2.6.29.5 would not have any limitations that 2.6.26 doesn't.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* Re: Size limitation?
2010-01-01 19:57 Size limitation? Michael McLagan
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2010-01-01 23:00 ` Leslie Rhorer
@ 2010-01-01 23:30 ` Zdenek Behan
2010-01-02 0:46 ` Michael Evans
2010-01-03 20:33 ` Andre Noll
4 siblings, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Zdenek Behan @ 2010-01-01 23:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: mmclagan+reply; +Cc: Michael McLagan, linux-raid
On 01/01/2010 08:57 PM, Michael McLagan wrote:
> I'm trying to set up a large array but isn't working. I tried
> Googling size limits, etc and came up empty.
>
> The problem is that with 10 drives (300GB SCSI), the array is coming up
> with 500GB of space?!? I did an experiment and when the array size
> exceeds 2TB, it fails/wraps?
>
Just curious, did you compile your kernel with LBD (Large Block Device)
support?
Zdenek
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* Re: Size limitation?
2010-01-01 23:30 ` Zdenek Behan
@ 2010-01-02 0:46 ` Michael Evans
2010-01-03 20:33 ` Andre Noll
1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Michael Evans @ 2010-01-02 0:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Zdenek Behan; +Cc: mmclagan+reply, Michael McLagan, linux-raid
On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Zdenek Behan <rain@matfyz.cz> wrote:
> On 01/01/2010 08:57 PM, Michael McLagan wrote:
>> I'm trying to set up a large array but isn't working. I tried
>> Googling size limits, etc and came up empty.
>>
>> The problem is that with 10 drives (300GB SCSI), the array is coming up
>> with 500GB of space?!? I did an experiment and when the array size
>> exceeds 2TB, it fails/wraps?
>>
> Just curious, did you compile your kernel with LBD (Large Block Device)
> support?
>
>
> Zdenek
> --
> 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
>
I couldn't find it in my config, so I googled:
http://cateee.net/lkddb/web-lkddb/LBD.html That does look like the
most likely problem.
If at all possible try to get a good dmesg capture of a new kernel,
you might want to explore using netconsole to log via UDP to a remote
system. Chances are good it's just some chipset/driver issue; I
remember having problems with a lack of timer for some boards; either
forcing it to use the older style timer or using a patched bios which
properly setup the HPET (timer) resolved the issue.
--
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] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Size limitation?
2010-01-01 23:30 ` Zdenek Behan
2010-01-02 0:46 ` Michael Evans
@ 2010-01-03 20:33 ` Andre Noll
2010-01-03 23:33 ` mjevans1983
` (2 more replies)
1 sibling, 3 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Andre Noll @ 2010-01-03 20:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Zdenek Behan; +Cc: mmclagan+reply, Michael McLagan, linux-raid
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 738 bytes --]
On 00:30, Zdenek Behan wrote:
> On 01/01/2010 08:57 PM, Michael McLagan wrote:
> > I'm trying to set up a large array but isn't working. I tried
> > Googling size limits, etc and came up empty.
> >
> > The problem is that with 10 drives (300GB SCSI), the array is coming up
> > with 500GB of space?!? I did an experiment and when the array size
> > exceeds 2TB, it fails/wraps?
> >
> Just curious, did you compile your kernel with LBD (Large Block Device)
> support?
Jup, missing LBD support would explain what Michael is seeing. That
begs the question why md happily creates arrays > 2T on a kernel
witout LBD support..
Andre
--
The only person who always got his work done by Friday was Robinson Crusoe
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* Re: Size limitation?
2010-01-03 20:33 ` Andre Noll
@ 2010-01-03 23:33 ` mjevans1983
2010-01-03 23:34 ` mjevans1983
2010-01-03 23:34 ` mjevans1983
2 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: mjevans1983 @ 2010-01-03 23:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andre Noll; +Cc: Zdenek Behan, Michael McLagan, linux-raid
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1265 bytes --]
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Andre Noll <maan@systemlinux.org> wrote:
> On 00:30, Zdenek Behan wrote:
>> On 01/01/2010 08:57 PM, Michael McLagan wrote:
>> > I'm trying to set up a large array but isn't working. I tried
>> > Googling size limits, etc and came up empty.
>> >
>> > The problem is that with 10 drives (300GB SCSI), the array is coming up
>> > with 500GB of space?!? I did an experiment and when the array size
>> > exceeds 2TB, it fails/wraps?
>> >
>> Just curious, did you compile your kernel with LBD (Large Block Device)
>> support?
>
> Jup, missing LBD support would explain what Michael is seeing. That
> begs the question why md happily creates arrays > 2T on a kernel
> witout LBD support..
>
> Andre
> --
> The only person who always got his work done by Friday was Robinson Crusoe
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFLQP8gWto1QDEAkw8RAg2oAJ95cG6ZMdEs2tg1pdFBQyQQil8wlQCdHl8W
> j6jd5RoGXkbEmKV9J/bwae0=
> =hB9F
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
There are two Michael's here, I'm not the one that that had this issue (Mostly because 64 bit systems have always had LBD support natively and I've never used a >500GB single drive or raid on a 32 bit system).
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 271 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Size limitation?
2010-01-03 20:33 ` Andre Noll
2010-01-03 23:33 ` mjevans1983
@ 2010-01-03 23:34 ` mjevans1983
2010-01-04 0:29 ` John Robinson
2010-01-03 23:34 ` mjevans1983
2 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: mjevans1983 @ 2010-01-03 23:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andre Noll; +Cc: Zdenek Behan, Michael McLagan, linux-raid
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1265 bytes --]
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Andre Noll <maan@systemlinux.org> wrote:
> On 00:30, Zdenek Behan wrote:
>> On 01/01/2010 08:57 PM, Michael McLagan wrote:
>> > I'm trying to set up a large array but isn't working. I tried
>> > Googling size limits, etc and came up empty.
>> >
>> > The problem is that with 10 drives (300GB SCSI), the array is coming up
>> > with 500GB of space?!? I did an experiment and when the array size
>> > exceeds 2TB, it fails/wraps?
>> >
>> Just curious, did you compile your kernel with LBD (Large Block Device)
>> support?
>
> Jup, missing LBD support would explain what Michael is seeing. That
> begs the question why md happily creates arrays > 2T on a kernel
> witout LBD support..
>
> Andre
> --
> The only person who always got his work done by Friday was Robinson Crusoe
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFLQP8gWto1QDEAkw8RAg2oAJ95cG6ZMdEs2tg1pdFBQyQQil8wlQCdHl8W
> j6jd5RoGXkbEmKV9J/bwae0=
> =hB9F
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
There are two Michael's here, I'm not the one that that had this issue (Mostly because 64 bit systems have always had LBD support natively and I've never used a >500GB single drive or raid on a 32 bit system).
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 271 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Size limitation?
2010-01-03 23:34 ` mjevans1983
@ 2010-01-04 0:29 ` John Robinson
0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: John Robinson @ 2010-01-04 0:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: mjevans1983; +Cc: linux-raid
On 03/01/2010 23:34, mjevans1983@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Andre Noll <maan@systemlinux.org> wrote:
>> On 00:30, Zdenek Behan wrote:
>>> On 01/01/2010 08:57 PM, Michael McLagan wrote:
>>> > I'm trying to set up a large array but isn't working. I tried
>>> > Googling size limits, etc and came up empty.
[...]
>> Jup, missing LBD support would explain what Michael is seeing. That
>> begs the question why md happily creates arrays > 2T on a kernel
>> witout LBD support..
>
> There are two Michael's here, I'm not the one that that had this issue
I don't think there was any need to point this out; Andre wasn't quoting
your reply to the thread and he did quote the Michael he was referring to.
Cheers,
John.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Size limitation?
2010-01-03 20:33 ` Andre Noll
2010-01-03 23:33 ` mjevans1983
2010-01-03 23:34 ` mjevans1983
@ 2010-01-03 23:34 ` mjevans1983
2 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: mjevans1983 @ 2010-01-03 23:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andre Noll; +Cc: Zdenek Behan, Michael McLagan, linux-raid
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1265 bytes --]
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Andre Noll <maan@systemlinux.org> wrote:
> On 00:30, Zdenek Behan wrote:
>> On 01/01/2010 08:57 PM, Michael McLagan wrote:
>> > I'm trying to set up a large array but isn't working. I tried
>> > Googling size limits, etc and came up empty.
>> >
>> > The problem is that with 10 drives (300GB SCSI), the array is coming up
>> > with 500GB of space?!? I did an experiment and when the array size
>> > exceeds 2TB, it fails/wraps?
>> >
>> Just curious, did you compile your kernel with LBD (Large Block Device)
>> support?
>
> Jup, missing LBD support would explain what Michael is seeing. That
> begs the question why md happily creates arrays > 2T on a kernel
> witout LBD support..
>
> Andre
> --
> The only person who always got his work done by Friday was Robinson Crusoe
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFLQP8gWto1QDEAkw8RAg2oAJ95cG6ZMdEs2tg1pdFBQyQQil8wlQCdHl8W
> j6jd5RoGXkbEmKV9J/bwae0=
> =hB9F
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
There are two Michael's here, I'm not the one that that had this issue (Mostly because 64 bit systems have always had LBD support natively and I've never used a >500GB single drive or raid on a 32 bit system).
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 271 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread