On 24 April 2013 07:52, NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 19:34:19 +0200 (CEST) Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk > <roy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > > > Please see http://paste.ubuntu.com/5721934/ for the full list, >> > > > taken >> > > > with network console. This is with rootdelay=10 >> > > >> > > The "bind" messages are in random order so presumably udev running >> > > 'mdadm -I' >> > > on each device as it appear to add it to an array. >> > > However when the md0 and md1 devices appear, udev isn't being run on >> > > that. >> > > So it looks like your udev rules file is wrong. >> > > Find out which file(s) in /{etc,lib,usr/lib}/udev/rules.d mention >> > > mdadm and >> > > post them. >> > >> > /lib/udev/rules.d/64-md-raid.rules is here >> > http://paste.ubuntu.com/5592227/ >> >> Bug tested positive also on Ubuntu Precise (12.04) and reported to https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/mdadm/+bug/1171945 >> >> Vennlige hilsener / Best regards >> >> > > This will run "mdadm --incremental $tempnode" on any device for which > ID_FS_TYPE is set to "linux_raid_member", which certainly seems reasonable. > > What does: > udevadm info --query=property --path=/dev/mdXXX | grep ID_FS_TYPE > > report for the raid5 arrays? > > Looking bug report I see that md0 and md1 have > ID_FS_TYPE=linux_raid_member > > So that should be working. > > The fact that rootdelay=10 makes a difference suggests that it is > successfully assembling the raid0, but just taking a bit too long. > Maybe the script in the initrd needs "udevadm settle" just before it attempts > to mount. > > Can you look inside the initrd and see if "udevadm settle" is used anywhere? > Yes, we do call and wait for udevadm to settle a few times, but it is still too short and may not be long enough to detect nested raid volumes and mount them properly in the correct order and non-degraded. I have a few thoughts on using a strategy similar to that in dracut / fedora to pass ids of the md arrays to assemble for rootfs device, and keep trying to assemble the rest of mdadm "on best effort" basis during boot. That way I am also hoping to finally get rid of the dreaded "boot degraded" boot option / question / prompt. This is still just design in progress and hasn't been implemented yet. I will be contacting this mailing list once I have something ready to improve raid assembly in ubuntu. Regards, Dmitrijs. -- 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
