From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id o4A177Od241774 for ; Sun, 9 May 2010 20:07:08 -0500 Received: from mail.sandeen.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id BFC8D325836 for ; Sun, 9 May 2010 18:09:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.sandeen.net (64-131-60-146.usfamily.net [64.131.60.146]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id MgM5jsxlbWQGmSON for ; Sun, 09 May 2010 18:09:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4BE75CBC.2000600@sandeen.net> Date: Sun, 09 May 2010 20:09:16 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: failed to read root inode References: <4BE55A63.8070203@purplehaze.ch> <4BE5EB5D.5020702@hardwarefreak.com> <20100509152818.7481c1e1@galadriel.home> <4BE6CC83.5070305@hardwarefreak.com> In-Reply-To: <4BE6CC83.5070305@hardwarefreak.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Stan Hoeppner Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com Stan Hoeppner wrote: > Emmanuel Florac put forth on 5/9/2010 8:28 AM: >> Le Sat, 08 May 2010 17:53:17 -0500 vous =E9criviez: >> >>> Why did the "crash" of a single disk in a hardware RAID6 cause a >>> kernel freeze? What is your definition of "disk crash"? A single >>> physical disk failure should not have caused this under any >>> circumstances. The RAID card should have handled a single disk >>> failure transparently. >> The RAID array may go west if the disk isn't properly set up, >> particularly if it's a desktop-class drive. = > = > By design, a RAID6 pack should be able to handle two simultaneous drive > failures before the array goes offline. According to the OP's post he lo= st > one drive. Unless it's a really crappy RAID card or if he's using a bunch > of dissimilar drives causing problems with the entire array, he shouldn't > have had a problem. > = > This is why I'm digging for more information. The information he present= ed > here doesn't really make any sense. One physical disk failure _shouldn't_ > have caused the problems he's experiencing. I don't think we got the full > story. I tend to agree, something is missing here, which means my suggestions for repair will be unlikely to be terribly successful; I think more is wrong than we know... -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs