From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Justin Piszcz Subject: Re: is this raid5 OK ? Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:58:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: 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=US-ASCII; format=flowed Return-path: In-Reply-To: <460D55AB.1080309@kaneda.iguw.tuwien.ac.at> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Rainer Fuegenstein Cc: Bill Davidsen , Neil Brown , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids 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. Justin.