From: Jakob Oestergaard <jakob@unthought.net>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Neil Brown <neilb@cse.unsw.edu.au>
Subject: Re: raid1 oops in 2.6.9 (debian package 2.6.9-1-686-smp)
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 11:07:08 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20041129100707.GX4469@unthought.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20041128142840.GA4119@mur.org.uk>
On Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 02:28:41PM +0000, Robert Murray wrote:
> Hi
>
> The complete console log can be found at http://haylott.plus.com/~robbie/md-oops.txt
>
> hde is a failed drive. In this log, hdg (the other drive in the raid1
> array) is not present. This oops also occurs when hdg is present. I
> don't know why it tries to use hde when it has been failed for some
> time now. This doesn't occur with 2.6.8 (also a debian kernel). I
> don't have a log of the oops when hdg was present, but I can provide
> one if necessary.
>
> Please let me know if there is any other information I can provide to
> help to debug this. For now I have removed hde and everything is
> working fine.
On a second note: Could someone please provide an explanation of why
the raid10 driver exists? People have created RAID-10 sets for years
using the RAID-0 driver on top of several RAID-1 arrays - this works
beautifully, it's simple, and it's easy to explain to people.
Why oh why, do we need raid10 ?
(I don't mean to bitch and moan over it - I just assume that there is a
good reason for it which was somehow never conveyed, or that I
overlooked in my search for this explanation)
And; if raid10 does not provide new functionality that was not possible
with raid1 + raid0, why oh why does this get accepted in a stable kernel
series? (ok, 2.6 is not stable, but I assume the intention is to make
it stable eventually, and accepting new functionality does not help this
process - all in all I do not understand the raid10 submission at all,
but I hope to be enlightened by someone (Neil?))
Also, I'd love to add a mention of raid10 in the HOWTO, but I need to
know why raid10 even exists before I can reasonably do that.
--
/ jakob "baffled Software-RAID HOWTO co-author"
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-11-29 10:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-11-28 14:28 raid1 oops in 2.6.9 (debian package 2.6.9-1-686-smp) Robert Murray
2004-11-29 10:07 ` Jakob Oestergaard [this message]
2004-11-29 12:02 ` Jurriaan
2004-11-29 12:51 ` Jakob Oestergaard
2004-11-30 1:58 ` Neil Brown
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20041129100707.GX4469@unthought.net \
--to=jakob@unthought.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=neilb@cse.unsw.edu.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox