hi neil, with time i could help changin sysfs information (add unit information at output, and remove it (unit text) from input) what's the current kernel version of develop? 2011/4/8 NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx>: > On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 09:19:01 +0800 Brad Campbell <lists2009@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > >> On 05/04/11 14:10, NeilBrown wrote: >> >> > I would suggest: >> > copy anything that you need off, just in case - if you can. >> > >> > Kill the mdadm that is running in the back ground. This will mean that >> > if the machine crashes your array will be corrupted, but you are thinking >> > of rebuilding it any, so that isn't the end of the world. >> > In /sys/block/md0/md >> > cat suspend_hi> suspend_lo >> > cat component_size> sync_max >> > >> >> root@srv:/sys/block/md0/md# cat /proc/mdstat >> Personalities : [linear] [raid0] [raid1] [raid10] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] >> md0 : active raid6 sdc[0] sdd[6](S) sdl[1](S) sdh[9] sda[8] sde[7] >> sdg[5] sdb[4] sdf[3] sdm[2] >> 7814078464 blocks super 1.2 level 6, 512k chunk, algorithm 2 >> [10/8] [U_UUUU_UUU] >> [=================>...] reshape = 88.2% (861696000/976759808) >> finish=3713.3min speed=516K/sec >> >> md2 : active raid5 sdi[0] sdk[3] sdj[1] >> 1465146368 blocks super 1.2 level 5, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [3/3] >> [UUU] >> >> md6 : active raid1 sdp6[0] sdo6[1] >> 821539904 blocks [2/2] [UU] >> >> md5 : active raid1 sdp5[0] sdo5[1] >> 104864192 blocks [2/2] [UU] >> >> md4 : active raid1 sdp3[0] sdo3[1] >> 20980800 blocks [2/2] [UU] >> >> md3 : active raid1 sdp2[0] sdo2[1] >> 8393856 blocks [2/2] [UU] >> >> md1 : active raid1 sdp1[0] sdo1[1] >> 20980736 blocks [2/2] [UU] >> >> unused devices: <none> >> root@srv:/sys/block/md0/md# cat component_size > sync_max >> cat: write error: Device or resource busy > > Sorry, I should have checked the source code. > > > echo max > sync_max > > is what you want. > Or just a much bigger number. > >> >> root@srv:/sys/block/md0/md# cat suspend_hi suspend_lo >> 13788774400 >> 13788774400 > > They are the same so that is good - nothing will be suspended. > >> >> root@srv:/sys/block/md0/md# grep . sync_* >> sync_action:reshape >> sync_completed:1723392000 / 1953519616 >> sync_force_parallel:0 >> sync_max:1723392000 >> sync_min:0 >> sync_speed:281 >> sync_speed_max:200000 (system) >> sync_speed_min:200000 (local) >> >> So I killed mdadm, then did the cat suspend_hi > suspend_lo.. but as you >> can see it won't let me change sync_max. The array above reports >> 516K/sec, but that was just on its way down to 0 on a time based >> average. It was not moving at all. >> >> I then tried stopping the array, restarting it with mdadm 3.1.4 which >> immediately segfaulted and left the array in state resync=DELAYED. >> >> I issued the above commands again, which succeeded this time but while >> the array looked good, it was not resyncing : >> root@srv:/sys/block/md0/md# cat /proc/mdstat >> Personalities : [linear] [raid0] [raid1] [raid10] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] >> md0 : active raid6 sdc[0] sdd[6](S) sdl[1](S) sdh[9] sda[8] sde[7] >> sdg[5] sdb[4] sdf[3] sdm[2] >> 7814078464 blocks super 1.2 level 6, 512k chunk, algorithm 2 >> [10/8] [U_UUUU_UUU] >> [=================>...] reshape = 88.2% (861698048/976759808) >> finish=30203712.0min speed=0K/sec >> >> md2 : active raid5 sdi[0] sdk[3] sdj[1] >> 1465146368 blocks super 1.2 level 5, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [3/3] >> [UUU] >> >> md6 : active raid1 sdp6[0] sdo6[1] >> 821539904 blocks [2/2] [UU] >> >> md5 : active raid1 sdp5[0] sdo5[1] >> 104864192 blocks [2/2] [UU] >> >> md4 : active raid1 sdp3[0] sdo3[1] >> 20980800 blocks [2/2] [UU] >> >> md3 : active raid1 sdp2[0] sdo2[1] >> 8393856 blocks [2/2] [UU] >> >> md1 : active raid1 sdp1[0] sdo1[1] >> 20980736 blocks [2/2] [UU] >> >> unused devices: <none> >> >> root@srv:/sys/block/md0/md# grep . sync* >> sync_action:reshape >> sync_completed:1723396096 / 1953519616 >> sync_force_parallel:0 >> sync_max:976759808 >> sync_min:0 >> sync_speed:0 >> sync_speed_max:200000 (system) >> sync_speed_min:200000 (local) >> >> I stopped the array and restarted it with mdadm 3.2.1 and it continued >> along its merry way. >> >> Not an issue, and I don't much care if it blew something up, but I >> thought it worthy of a follow up. >> >> If there is anything you need tested while it's in this state I've got ~ >> 1000 minutes of resync time left and I'm happy to damage it if requested. > > No thank - I think I know what happened. Main problem is that there is > confusion between 'k' and 'sectors' and there are random other values that > sometimes work (like 'max') and I never remember which is which. sysfs in md > is a bit of a mess.... one day I hope to completely replace it (with back > compatibility of course...) > > Thanks for the feedback. > > NeilBrown > > >> >> Regards, >> Brad >> -- >> 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 > -- Roberto Spadim Spadim Technology / SPAEmpresarial -- 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
