Re: [PATCH] (Re: Questions regarding startup of imsm container)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 2:04 AM, Luca Berra <bluca@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> # mdadm --version
>> mdadm - v3.1.2 - 10th March 2010
>>
>> # mdadm -Es
>> ARRAY metadata=imsm UUID=30223250:76fd248b:50280919:0836b7f0
>> ARRAY /dev/md/Volume0 container=30223250:76fd248b:50280919:0836b7f0
>> member=0 UUID=8a4ae452:da1e7832:70ecf895:eb58229c
>>
>> # ls -l /dev/md/
>> total 0
>> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 6 Mar 22 20:54 0 -> ../md0
>> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 8 Mar 22 20:54 127 -> ../md127
>> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 8 Mar 22 20:54 Volume0_0 -> ../md127
>>
>> As you can see, the name for the link in /dev/md does not agree with
>> the name that the Examine is coming up with.
>
> please read mdadm.conf manpage, under the section "HOMEHOST"

If I understand this correctly, I think there still may be a problem
as I am not clear on how I could have set the homehost in the metadata
for this imsm array. The Volume0 is provided by imsm and is configured
in the option ROM.

The underlying question here is should the ARRAY entry in mdadm.conf
be changed to reflect the on disk name of the device, or is the
startup process munging that entry when it processes mdadm.conf to
strip the _0.

I'll try setting HOMEHOST <ignore> to see if I am getting expected results.

I seem to have some problems with startup still as I have the
following entry where the container is now md127. Was md0 when
originally created.

# cat /proc/mdstat
Personalities : [linear] [raid0] [raid1] [raid10] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4]
md126 : active raid5 sdb[3] sdc[2] sdd[1] sde[0]
      2930280448 blocks super external:/md127/0 level 5, 64k chunk,
algorithm 0 [4/4] [UUUU]

md127 : inactive sde[3](S) sdb[2](S) sdc[1](S) sdd[0](S)
      9028 blocks super external:imsm

unused devices: <none>

I am also running into a problem where fsck will crash during boot on
the ext4 filesystems that this array contains. No problem running fsck
after the boot process has completed so have not seemed to find the
magic with order of startup for this device.


>
>> Is it better to just forgo the ARRAY statements and go with an AUTO +imsm?
>>
--
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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux RAID Wiki]     [ATA RAID]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Linux Block]     [Linux IDE]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux Hams]     [Device Mapper]     [Device Mapper Cryptographics]     [Kernel]     [Linux Admin]     [Linux Net]     [GFS]     [RPM]     [git]     [Yosemite Forum]


  Powered by Linux