Bear in mind raid superblock v0.9 is deprecated as in "if it breaks it
won't be fixed for you".
So I would skip this test, and if you're mentioning raid in the
handbook, tell people they need to use one of the v1.x formats.
(NB - you can always point them at the linux raid wiki.)
Cheers,
Wol
On 05/01/2022 17:12, Randy Dunlap wrote:
Hi.
[adding linux-raid mailing list]
On 1/4/22 10:55, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
I am trying to document the mdadm-4.2 installation procedures for our book,
https://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/svn/postlfs/mdadm.html
For testing, I am doing a simple:
make
sudo ./test --keep-going --logdir=test-logs --save-logs
But I get failures for about half the tests.
Digging in a bit I just ran:
sudo ./test --tests=00raid0 --logdir=test-logs
This is the first test that fails. With some hacking, it appears that the first portion of this test that fails is:
mdadm -CR $md0 -e0.90 -l0 -n4 $dev0 $dev1 $dev2 $dev3
This resolves to
mdadm -CR /dev/md0 -e0.90 -l0 -n4 /dev/loop0 /dev/loop1 /dev/loop2 /dev/loop3
There is not a lot of error output in the test, so I manually ran:
dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/mdtest0 count=20000 bs=1K
losetup /dev/loop0 /tmp/mdtest0
For /dev/loop[0123]
Then I ran
mdadm -CR /dev/md0 -e0.90 -l0 -n4 /dev/loop0 /dev/loop1 /dev/loop2 /dev/loop3
mdadm: 0.90 metadata does not support layouts for RAID0
My question is whether the regression tests in the tarball are valid for mdadm-4.2?
-- Bruce Dubbs
linuxfromscratch.org
Note: The kernel is version 5.15.12.
