Hello Dan, On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 11:02 PM, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 5:45 AM, Francis Moreau <francis.moro@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hello Lukasz >> >> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Dorau, Lukasz <lukasz.dorau@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> [...] >> >>> >>> If you created a RAID array with mdadm, it would work correctly - recovery would >>> start. >> >> Nope, I've got an identical behaviour if the array is created by mdadm (v3.3). > > It should really work either way. I gave it a shot with: > > mdadm - v3.3-30-gf33a71f - 31st October 2013 > mdadm - v3.2.5 - 18th May 2012 > > ...and it seems ok with loop devices, so something more fundamental is wrong. > > mdmon is in charge of finding new devices in the container and adding > them to the member arrays. Can you confirm that mdmon is running when > the disk is failing to be added? > > The IMSM format is sensitive to disk serial numbers, I'm curious if > your virtual disks are specifying unique serial numbers for your > devices? In my above tests with loopback devices I am using > IMSM_DEVNAME_AS_SERIAL=1 for debug purposes you might try that as > well. > I think I found something. In my current settings, when mdadm creates a new RAID array with foreign metadata, it starts mdmon by using systemd throught the mdmon@.service. However in that case the new mdmon process doesn't see the IMSM_NO_PLATFORM environment variable set because process started by systemd are executed in a clean env. To verify this, I created the array again by calling mdadm with MDADM_NO_SYSTEMCTL env variable set and it worked as expected. I also tested by using systemd and by adding "Environment=IMSM_NO_PLATFORM=1" in the unit file and it worked too. WDTY ? Thanks -- Francis -- 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
