* RAID-6 disk superblock issue
@ 2011-12-13 22:42 Troy Telford
2011-12-14 19:01 ` Phil Turmel
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Troy Telford @ 2011-12-13 22:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-raid
I have a RAID-6 array I'm having trouble with:
md2 : active raid6 sdl1[6] sdh1[0] sdm1[5] sdk1[3] sdj1[2] sdi1[1]
1953535488 blocks level 6, 128k chunk, algorithm 2 [6/5] [UUUU_U]
[>....................] recovery = 0.0% (27164/488383872)
finish=599.1min speed=13582K/sec
- When the system boots (or when I attempt to build the array), I get a
message that /dev/sdl and /dev/sdl1 have the same superblock, and that
I should zero one.
- So, I zero the superblock using 'mdadm --zero-superblock /dev/sdl (or
/dev/sdl1; doesn't matter which I use).
- I then re-add the device to the array (and the RAID-6 array recovers,
as above.)
- The next time I boot, I get the exact same error message.
- It doesn't seem to matter which (between the device or the partition)
that I zero the superblock on. I get the same error message at boot
(when the drive is being assembled).
- Since it's redundant data anyway, I've tried dd'ing from /dev/zero
over the drive, repartitioning the drive, and then adding the drive to
the array. Same behavior.
- My mdadm.conf just has the array itself, and the array's UUID. It
doesn't explicitly list devices.
So what am I missing? There's got to be a way I can get the array to
assemble at boot, instead of having to manually --zero-superblock every
time.
--
Troy Telford
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: RAID-6 disk superblock issue
2011-12-13 22:42 RAID-6 disk superblock issue Troy Telford
@ 2011-12-14 19:01 ` Phil Turmel
2011-12-14 21:41 ` Troy Telford
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Phil Turmel @ 2011-12-14 19:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Troy Telford; +Cc: linux-raid
Hi Troy,
On 12/13/2011 05:42 PM, Troy Telford wrote:
> I have a RAID-6 array I'm having trouble with:
>
> md2 : active raid6 sdl1[6] sdh1[0] sdm1[5] sdk1[3] sdj1[2] sdi1[1]
> 1953535488 blocks level 6, 128k chunk, algorithm 2 [6/5] [UUUU_U]
> [>....................] recovery = 0.0% (27164/488383872) finish=599.1min speed=13582K/sec
>
> - When the system boots (or when I attempt to build the array), I get a message that /dev/sdl and /dev/sdl1 have the same superblock, and that I should zero one.
> - So, I zero the superblock using 'mdadm --zero-superblock /dev/sdl (or /dev/sdl1; doesn't matter which I use).
> - I then re-add the device to the array (and the RAID-6 array recovers, as above.)
> - The next time I boot, I get the exact same error message.
>
>
> - It doesn't seem to matter which (between the device or the partition) that I zero the superblock on. I get the same error message at boot (when the drive is being assembled).
> - Since it's redundant data anyway, I've tried dd'ing from /dev/zero over the drive, repartitioning the drive, and then adding the drive to the array. Same behavior.
>
> - My mdadm.conf just has the array itself, and the array's UUID. It doesn't explicitly list devices.
>
> So what am I missing? There's got to be a way I can get the array to assemble at boot, instead of having to manually --zero-superblock every time.
Let me guess: You have version 0.90 superblock, and sdl1 covers the whole device?
Short term, change your mdadm.conf to only accept device names that end with a digit. Like so:
DEVICE /dev/sd[a-z][1-9]
Then rebuild your initramfs to include the new mdadm.conf.
Long term, rebuild your array with v1.x metadata.
HTH,
Phil
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: RAID-6 disk superblock issue
2011-12-14 19:01 ` Phil Turmel
@ 2011-12-14 21:41 ` Troy Telford
2011-12-14 22:04 ` Mark Knecht
2011-12-14 22:07 ` NeilBrown
0 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Troy Telford @ 2011-12-14 21:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-raid
On 2011-12-14 19:01:01 +0000, Phil Turmel said:
> Hi Troy,
>
> On 12/13/2011 05:42 PM, Troy Telford wrote:
>
> Let me guess: You have version 0.90 superblock, and sdl1 covers the
> whole device?
sdl1 does cover the entire device, but I'm fairly certain I do not have
a 0.90 superblock (Unless 0.90 was the standard version for Linux 2.6
about two years ago.)
Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to get my current superblock version:
$ sudo mdadm --examine /dev/md2
mdadm: No md superblock detected on /dev/md2.
I find it curious that I can't detect the superblock for the MD device,
even though the device is up, active, and working.
> Short term, change your mdadm.conf to only accept device names that end
> with a digit. Like so:
>
> DEVICE /dev/sd[a-z][1-9]
OK, I'll give that a whirl. For the record, it was DEVICE partitions
previously.
> Then rebuild your initramfs to include the new mdadm.conf.
>
> Long term, rebuild your array with v1.x metadata.
You know, I was hoping to be able to wait until btrfs handles RAID-6
(or "raid-z") arrays by the time I had to rebuild the array. I guess
I'm not that lucky.
--
Troy Telford
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: RAID-6 disk superblock issue
2011-12-14 21:41 ` Troy Telford
@ 2011-12-14 22:04 ` Mark Knecht
2011-12-14 22:08 ` Troy Telford
2011-12-14 22:07 ` NeilBrown
1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Mark Knecht @ 2011-12-14 22:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Troy Telford; +Cc: linux-raid
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Troy Telford <ttelford.groups@gmail.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
>
> Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to get my current superblock version:
> $ sudo mdadm --examine /dev/md2
> mdadm: No md superblock detected on /dev/md2.
>
use --detail instead:
c2stable ~ # mdadm --detail /dev/md126 | grep Version
Version : 0.90
c2stable ~ #
HTH,
Mark
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: RAID-6 disk superblock issue
2011-12-14 21:41 ` Troy Telford
2011-12-14 22:04 ` Mark Knecht
@ 2011-12-14 22:07 ` NeilBrown
2011-12-14 22:14 ` Troy Telford
1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: NeilBrown @ 2011-12-14 22:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Troy Telford; +Cc: linux-raid
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1854 bytes --]
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 14:41:52 -0700 Troy Telford <ttelford.groups@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 2011-12-14 19:01:01 +0000, Phil Turmel said:
>
> > Hi Troy,
> >
> > On 12/13/2011 05:42 PM, Troy Telford wrote:
> >
> > Let me guess: You have version 0.90 superblock, and sdl1 covers the
> > whole device?
>
> sdl1 does cover the entire device, but I'm fairly certain I do not have
> a 0.90 superblock (Unless 0.90 was the standard version for Linux 2.6
> about two years ago.)
It is mdadm that determines the superblock rather than the kernel, but you
definitely have 0.90 superblocks - I can tell from the /proc/mdstat output
(it doesn't list a version, so it must be 0.90).
>
> Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to get my current superblock version:
> $ sudo mdadm --examine /dev/md2
> mdadm: No md superblock detected on /dev/md2.
>
> I find it curious that I can't detect the superblock for the MD device,
> even though the device is up, active, and working.
The array doesn't have a superblock. Each member device does.
mdadm --examine /dev/sdl1
>
> > Short term, change your mdadm.conf to only accept device names that end
> > with a digit. Like so:
> >
> > DEVICE /dev/sd[a-z][1-9]
>
> OK, I'll give that a whirl. For the record, it was DEVICE partitions
> previously.
>
> > Then rebuild your initramfs to include the new mdadm.conf.
> >
> > Long term, rebuild your array with v1.x metadata.
>
> You know, I was hoping to be able to wait until btrfs handles RAID-6
> (or "raid-z") arrays by the time I had to rebuild the array. I guess
> I'm not that lucky.
You don't really need to rebuild the array. Just change the DEVICE line and
all will be happy.
(but I advise you never to plan on using software that hasn't be released yet
- that way lies madness).
NeilBrown
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 828 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: RAID-6 disk superblock issue
2011-12-14 22:04 ` Mark Knecht
@ 2011-12-14 22:08 ` Troy Telford
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Troy Telford @ 2011-12-14 22:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-raid
On 2011-12-14 22:04:12 +0000, Mark Knecht said:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Troy Telford
> <ttelford.groups@gmail.com> wrote:
> <SNIP>
>>
>> Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to get my current superblock version:
>> $ sudo mdadm --examine /dev/md2
>> mdadm: No md superblock detected on /dev/md2.
>>
>
> use --detail instead:
>
> c2stable ~ # mdadm --detail /dev/md126 | grep Version
> Version : 0.90
> c2stable ~ #
>
> HTH,
> Mark
Yup. 0.90
$ sudo mdadm --detail /dev/md2
/dev/md2:
Version : 0.90
Creation Time : Tue Oct 27 09:45:39 2009
Wow. It's younger than I thought.
Thanks!
--
Troy Telford
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: RAID-6 disk superblock issue
2011-12-14 22:07 ` NeilBrown
@ 2011-12-14 22:14 ` Troy Telford
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Troy Telford @ 2011-12-14 22:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-raid
On 2011-12-14 22:07:51 +0000, NeilBrown said:
> (but I advise you never to plan on using software that hasn't be released yet
> - that way lies madness).
It was more a comment on the pace of btrfs development than a desire to
switch right away.
I've only tried btrfs on removable drives so far, with unimportant data.
But I won't rule out madness. It did no end of good for Ford Prefect.
It sounds like a good deal.
--
Troy Telford
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-12-14 22:14 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-12-13 22:42 RAID-6 disk superblock issue Troy Telford
2011-12-14 19:01 ` Phil Turmel
2011-12-14 21:41 ` Troy Telford
2011-12-14 22:04 ` Mark Knecht
2011-12-14 22:08 ` Troy Telford
2011-12-14 22:07 ` NeilBrown
2011-12-14 22:14 ` Troy Telford
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).