I don't know about the dead lock, or the native RAID10, but you setup is not the best. It would be much better to have this config: MD2 is RAID1 with 2 disks sda1 sdd1 MD3 is RAID1 with 2 disks sdb1 sde1 MD4 is RAID1 with 2 disks sdc1 sdf1 MD5 is RAID0 with 3 disks MD2 MD3 MD4 Now when a disk fails MD5 will not "see" the failure, if fact, each of the RAID1 arrays can lose 1 disk and not cause MD5 to fail. A re-sync of 1 disk will only affect 1 array. With the setup you had, assume no dead lock... If you lose 1 disk, 3 disks go off-line. When you replace the 1 disk, you must re-sync 3 disks. Guy -----Original Message----- From: linux-raid-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-raid-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Christian Schmid Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 10:34 AM To: mingo@xxxxxxxxxx; neilb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-raid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: BUG (Deadlock) in 2.6.10 Hello. Just for your information: There is a deadlock in the following situation: MD2 is Raid 0 with 3 disks. sda1 sdb1 sdc1 MD3 is Raid 0 with 3 disks. sdd1 sde1 sdf1 MD4 is Raid 1 with 2 disks. MD2 and MD3!! If a disk in MD2 fails, MD2 completely fails. MD4 SHOULD now mark disk 1 (MD2) as faulty but does not. Instead there is a dead-lock. "sync" hangs as well. Had to reboot. I am now using the native Raid 10. Is this stable enough? Best regards, Chris - RapidTec - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
