From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?UTF-8?B?VmxhZGltaXIgJ8+GLWNvZGVyL3BoY29kZXInIFNlcmJpbmVua28=?= Subject: Re: Bug#597563: grub-common: grub-probe segfaults scanning lvm devices Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2011 22:32:01 +0100 Message-ID: <4D2A2951.5020902@gmail.com> References: <20100920202854.27101.8288.reportbug@cheetah.fastcat.org> <4D274FF9.8010004@gmail.com> <4D285B79.9040100@gmail.com> <20110110075543.4969998e@notabene.brown> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig20F2D1285165113064892802" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20110110075543.4969998e@notabene.brown> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: NeilBrown Cc: Matthew Gabeler-Lee , 597563@bugs.debian.org, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig20F2D1285165113064892802 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 01/09/2011 09:55 PM, NeilBrown wrote: > On Sat, 8 Jan 2011 17:53:07 -0500 (EST) Matthew Gabeler-Lee > wrote: > > =20 >> On Sat, 8 Jan 2011, Vladimir '=CF=86-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko wrote: >> >> =20 >>> As was recommended I forward the remaining part to linux-raid mailing= list. >>> In short: on his system mdraid, raid5, 4 devices, metadata (presumabl= y) >>> 0.90, two devices have index 0. >>> =20 > What do you mean by "two devices have index 0" ??? I could see nothing = in any > of the posts you sent that could be interpreted that way. > > =20 Sorry, I forgot this part: grub-core/disk/raid.c:699: Scanning for RAID devices on disk hd2 grub-core/kern/disk.c:245: Opening `hd2'... =2E/grub-probe: info: the size of hd2 is 1465149168. error: found two disks with the number 0. grub-core/kern/disk.c:330: Closing `hd2'. Trouble comes from followint part: $ sudo mdadm --examine /dev/sdb /dev/sdb: Magic : a92b4efc Version : 0.90.03 UUID : 9364f7a2:d74695d5:7d8db3a0:3b5f9e48 Creation Time : Mon Mar 27 14:03:04 2006 Raid Level : raid1 Used Dev Size : 979840 (957.04 MiB 1003.36 MB) Array Size : 979840 (957.04 MiB 1003.36 MB) Raid Devices : 2 Total Devices : 3 Preferred Minor : 0 Update Time : Thu Jan 8 00:34:39 2009 State : clean Active Devices : 2 Working Devices : 3 Failed Devices : 0 Spare Devices : 1 Checksum : 5b8134eb - correct Events : 9446738 So sdb as whole pretends to be a part of the following array: $ sudo mdadm -QD /dev/md0 /dev/md0: Version : 0.90 Creation Time : Mon Mar 27 14:03:04 2006 Raid Level : raid1 Array Size : 2008000 (1961.27 MiB 2056.19 MB) Used Dev Size : 2008000 (1961.27 MiB 2056.19 MB) Raid Devices : 4 Total Devices : 4 Preferred Minor : 0 Persistence : Superblock is persistent Update Time : Sat Jan 8 18:35:47 2011 State : clean Active Devices : 4 Working Devices : 4 Failed Devices : 0 Spare Devices : 0 UUID : 9364f7a2:d74695d5:7d8db3a0:3b5f9e48 Events : 0.10758124 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State 0 8 17 0 active sync /dev/sdb1 1 8 33 1 active sync /dev/sdc1 2 8 1 2 active sync /dev/sda1 3 8 49 3 active sync /dev/sdd1 As you can see there is a stalled superblock approximately 2 years old. I don't know if it's some kind of freak accident or operator error. If it's later then probably zero-filling over stalled superblock will solve the problems --=20 Regards Vladimir '=CF=86-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko --------------enig20F2D1285165113064892802 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iF4EAREKAAYFAk0qKVEACgkQNak7dOguQgnYiwD+L858dwg9O0aUHLNNPD9QXAIc QI7DCVmsZe+zYWN9JakA/0ascDre/MxX2I2oiC6v2Flwy512+R/9VEIZTW7QIl7e =w3Lo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig20F2D1285165113064892802--