From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: NeilBrown Subject: Re: hung grow Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2017 16:47:58 +1100 Message-ID: <877ew4zxbl.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> References: <3173c10a-fbd9-f563-4c90-a9f63e020773@youngman.org.uk> <7e23d39b-aebb-0852-c98f-758bd99d3eb9@turmel.org> <89992d1f-172f-9fc6-3a1e-50df34e11d3b@turmel.org> < 87po9xyv0r.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <87d15xymgc.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Curt Cc: Phil Turmel , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain On Mon, Oct 09 2017, Curt wrote: > On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 12:28 AM, NeilBrown wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 08 2017, Curt wrote: >> Theoretically that should work. Was it deliberate? (I cannot seem to >> find the start of the thread). > Yes and no, I ran the command, but it wasn't what I really wanted > and/or needed, so to speak. > > >> are all valid devices with the same event counts. They are the six that >> you need. >> To confirm that names haven't changed, you can: >> mdadm --examine /dev/sdg1 /dev/sdd1 /dev/sdc1 /dev/sda1 /dev/sde1 \ >> /dev/sdb | grep Events > > Yes, the numbers all match. >> >> and confirm all the numbers are the same. >> Then do the same and grep for "this" and confirm all the Raid Disk >> numbers are different. > confirmed >> >> Interesting that /dev/sdb is a whole device and the rest are partitions. >> I assume you know about that and why it is. > Just a mistake when I added it. >> >> What happens if you run the --assemble --update=revert-reshape command on >> these 6 devices (without --force)?? >> >> NeilBrown > I'll give it a try, but first a question and FYI. Earlier Phil had me > ddrescue sde1 because it had pending sectors I believe. Should I use > sde1 or sdz1(ddrescued version)? If sdz1 contains the same data as sde1, then use sdz1. > > Also when this whole thing started. md127_raid process was using 100% > cpu, but nothing seemed to be happening, No numbers changed, nothing > that I could tell anyway. Any suggestions on if the same thing > happens when I run the revert-reshape? Could one of my libraries be > behind a version somewhere? If md127_raid is using 100% then that is a kernel bug. If that happens, then find all processes that are spinning or are in 'D' state, and cat /proc/$PID/stack for each pid, and report all the output. NeilBrown --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEG8Yp69OQ2HB7X0l6Oeye3VZigbkFAlnbDY4ACgkQOeye3VZi gbkRZhAApgIjH4VxI7xSFyNz2EZMNcKKGhgQw3WdhsyeeuKca5WngxI/8P/g8Y2h d8GhDhufcLEZ+RDkbc6cGbANTvoeUBjoXwUpvmieYB8x5vcNTvEOzJbpuFliZy8A jn+0a2DQRotVIFD/1FV2jYBGlOOL0Ox4Zwftmlz8w3pOiosQI6r/A6eKbSfXN1p/ n51NeDnI4ZKHwyX+D+RjJDd8+9j2pe+O/w5Rk+NYm8iYjS2Zv9tQ53tgDDyYQWOm m1ZLCNtyTjEcdiGMeTUskt1iICpIvBhpLwm5vYAGtdAoQXIasU64bkZ/Z+zWyeW6 GqRuQEl/H/pJhnbaHIDDtQo9nToa3GLwS27bMIR6KJKO2sbfHW8dFZH88Hx+yu74 kNoNOlz+vfpJZaJQ+5tluWMUsq+tLp4JhvboXO7PUKhYSGYFtU08zhANmBa8eHmW 7xpUQL8zb4so+2MClq3jeAWv1aMy3afDhn6cDOVvKV0hlQjCr6gRjmWXs4r2Tr2C 2QRrZ9jDl+92DdY5cNGcWt8QFLdew+ZRMT8r7BalFY/zacDdJkU52ndhZyivCSPr TFMn8hq299hui6vxo/vBdtR6LKRneLzGVjrrn/qSNiHsNidxzwN7Daf0/BzV+x8o v1fTFTWaXTyCnspQmc9tQ4buc4NT4idBXXsHcMXxJzE9+0tsmiI= =Wdfr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--