On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 01:15:52 +0200 David Brown <david.brown@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 12/04/11 00:27, NeilBrown wrote: > > On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 23:44:58 +0200 David Brown<david.brown@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > wrote: > > > >> Am I right in thinking that you cannot grow the size of a raid array > >> that is build on top of other arrays? > > > > Not - in general it should work just the same as building out of any other > > device. > > > >> > >> I am doing some experiments at the moment with small loopback devices > >> mapped to files on a tmpfs file system - the idea being I can play > >> around with my fake "disks" without any risk, and with resync times > >> faster than I can type. > > > > Very sensible! > > > > > >> > >> My setup is like this (in case anyone wants to try it) : > >> > >> mount -t tmpfs tmpfs /root/loops > >> dd if=/dev/zero of=/root/loops/loop1 bs=1M count=128 > >> dd if=/dev/zero of=/root/loops/loop2 bs=1M count=128 > >> dd if=/dev/zero of=/root/loops/loop3 bs=1M count=128 > >> dd if=/dev/zero of=/root/loops/loop4 bs=1M count=160 > >> dd if=/dev/zero of=/root/loops/loop5 bs=1M count=160 > >> dd if=/dev/zero of=/root/loops/loop6 bs=1M count=160 > >> > >> losetup /dev/loop1 /root/loops/loop1 > >> ... > >> losetup /dev/loop6 /root/loops/loop6 > >> > >> This gives me 6 "disks" - 3 x 128 MB disks, and 3 x 160 MB disks. > >> > >> Make some single-disk "mirrors": > >> > >> mdadm --create /dev/md/mdpair1 --level=1 --force -n 1 /dev/loop1 > >> mdadm --create /dev/md/mdpair2 --level=1 --force -n 1 /dev/loop2 > >> mdadm --create /dev/md/mdpair3 --level=1 --force -n 1 /dev/loop3 > >> > >> > >> Make a raid5 with no redundancy, so it's easy to see if something goes > >> horribly wrong: > >> > >> mdadm --create /dev/md/mdr --level=5 -n 4 /dev/md/mdpair1 > >> /dev/md/mdpair2 /dev/md/mdpair3 missing > >> > >> > >> Make and mount a file system, and put some data on it - so we can check > >> the data is still there. > >> > >> mkfs.ext4 /dev/md/mdr > >> mkdir m > >> mount /dev/md/mdr m > >> cp -r /usr/share m > >> > >> > >> At this stage, I've got a degraded raid5 with about 384MB space, in use > >> as a mounted file system. > >> > >> > >> Now I want to swap out each of my 128 MB "disks" with 160 MB "disks". I > >> want to do that without reducing the redundancy of the main raid (in the > >> real world, it would be raid 6 - not a degraded raid 5), and by using > >> mirror copies to minimise the strain on the other disks. > >> > >> Add a new disk as a "hot spare" to a pair: > >> > >> mdadm --add /dev/md/mdpair1 /dev/loop4 > >> > >> Change it to being a 2-drive mirror > >> > >> mdadm --grow /dev/md/mdpair1 -n 2 > >> > >> Wait for the sync to complete... > >> > >> Remove the small disk and change it back to a 1-drive mirror > >> > >> mdadm --fail /dev/md/mdpair1 /dev/loop1 > >> mdadm --remove /dev/md/mdpair1 /dev/loop1 > >> mdadm --grow /dev/md/mdpair1 -n 1 --force > >> > >> Now I can grow the one-disk mirror to use the whole new disk: > >> > >> mdadm --grow /dev/md/mdpair1 --size=max > >> > >> > >> Repeat the procedure for the other two mdpair components. > >> > >> My raid5 array is build on top of these three raid1 mirrors, which have > >> now all increased from 128 MB to 160 MB (confirmed by mdadm --detail and > >> blockdev --report). > >> > >> But when I try to grow the raid 5 array, nothing happens: > >> > >> mdadm --grow /dev/md/mdr --size=max > >> > >> I am still getting a "component size" of 128 MB. > > > > You need to tell md2 that each of it's components has grown. > > If the RAID5 has metadata at the end of the device (0.90 or 1.0), then > > this array is quite unsafe. If you stop and restart mdadm will not be able > > to find the metadata - it is in the middle of the device somewhere. > > If the metadata is at the start then you are safer, but the metadata still > > thinks it knows the size of each device. > > > > If the metadata is at the start, you can stop the array and assemble it again > > with > > --update=devicesize > > > > then the --grow --size=max will work. > > > > If the metadata is at the end of the device, then as soon as the device > > becomes bigger, you really should > > echo 0> /sys/block/mdXX/md/dev-mdYY/size > > where XX is the raid5 and YY is the raid1 that you have grown. > > That tells md to re-assess the size of the device and write new metadata. > > It would be good if the kernel did this automatically but it cannot yet. > > > > You can also do this with metadata at the start of the device. > > > > Once you have told md that the size of each device has changed, then you can > > ask it to grow the array to match this new size. > > > > The next release of mdadm should do this for you. i.e. when you run > > --grow --size=max > > it will reset the size of each component first. > > > > > > NeilBrown > > > > > > Thank you for that. It's a bit late tonight, but I will try your > instructions tomorrow. > > It's just occurred to me what the difference is between this case and my > initial testing with the raid5 array build directly on the loopback > devices. In my current case, the raid5's devices haven't changed - they > are still the mdpairX arrays, but those devices have grown. In the > previous case, I swapped out the old smaller devices for newer bigger > devices - which is not really the same situation. Correct. > > Am I right in thinking that it is best to use metadata format 1.2, which > is at the beginning of the array? Are there any disadvantages to this? Yes. 1.2 is the default so presumably someone thinks it is best... The main shortcoming with 1.2 is that with RAID1 array you cannot just use one of the devices as a non-raid device, which is sometimes useful. Of course that can also be seen as a strength of 1.2 (and 1.1). > > And how do I check the metadata format of the existing arrays - is it > the "version" from a "mdadm --detail" report? (In which case, all my > arrays are version 1.2). The version has (for silly historical reasons) 3 parts: major . minor . patchlevel The metadata version is the corresponding major . minor NeilBrown > > mvh., > > David > > > > > >> > >> > >> If I do the same setup, but build the raid5 array directly from the 128 > >> MB loopback devices, then add the 160 MB devices, then remove the 128 MB > >> devices (after appropriate resyncs, of course), then I can grow the raid > >> 5 array as expected. > >> > >> > >> Am I doing something wrong here, or is this a limitation of hierarchical > >> raid setups? > >> > >> > > -- > 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
