mdadm 3.0.3 bug report

I tried to create a raid thusly:
mdadm --create /dev/md3 --level=10 --layout=f2 --metadata=ddf
--raid-devices=2 --assume-clean /dev/sdc1 missing
and while I got a non-zero exit code (1), I did not get an error
message or any other indication of failure.

The misfeature is that I expected some sort of message.

--
Jon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: mdadm 3.0.3 bug report

$ perror 1
OS error code 1: Operation not permitted

Will it let you create that with another layout type? (such as near or
offset) or with another metadata container format (such as 1.1)?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: mdadm 3.0.3 bug report

On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 6:24 PM, Michael Evans w=
rote:
> $ perror 1
> OS error code =A0 1: =A0Operation not permitted
>
> Will it let you create that with another layout type? (such as near o=
r
> offset) or with another metadata container format (such as 1.1)?

Yes, I understand error codes.
However, I was still expecting an error *message*.

With metadata=3D1.1, I get:

mdadm: array /dev/md/3 started.
(and exit code 0, of course)


--=20
Jon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" i=
n
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: mdadm 3.0.3 bug report

On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Jon Nelson
wrote:
> I tried to create a raid thusly:
> mdadm --create /dev/md3 --level=10 --layout=f2 --metadata=ddf
> --raid-devices=2 --assume-clean /dev/sdc1 missing
> and while I got a non-zero exit code (1), I did not get an error
> message or any other indication of failure.
>
> The misfeature is that I expected some sort of message.

Yes, there should be a message that points out that the external
metadata formats ('ddf' and 'imsm') require a container to be created
first and then raid volumes are carved out of that container. The
mdmon man page has a little blurb on containers. The 'missing' option
is currently not supported for creating containers so you would need
to modify this to something like:

mdadm --create /dev/md/ddf -e ddf /dev/sdc /dev/sdX -n 2
mdadm --create /dev/md/volume0 /dev/md/ddf --level=10 --layout=f2

--
Dan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: mdadm 3.0.3 bug report

On Monday November 9, dan.j.williams@intel.com wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Jon Nelson
> wrote:
> > I tried to create a raid thusly:
> > mdadm --create /dev/md3 --level=10 --layout=f2 --metadata=ddf
> > --raid-devices=2 --assume-clean /dev/sdc1 missing
> > and while I got a non-zero exit code (1), I did not get an error
> > message or any other indication of failure.
> >
> > The misfeature is that I expected some sort of message.

Thanks for the report. mdadm-3.1.1 will be more verbose.

In that particular case:

mdadm: DDF does not support level 10 arrays

If you try the same with --level=5

mdadm: ddf: Cannot create this array on device /dev/sdc1 - a container is required.


>
> Yes, there should be a message that points out that the external
> metadata formats ('ddf' and 'imsm') require a container to be created
> first and then raid volumes are carved out of that container. The
> mdmon man page has a little blurb on containers. The 'missing' option
> is currently not supported for creating containers so you would need
> to modify this to something like:

I really should do something about supporting the 'missing' option,
and in general being able to specify which devices in the container
should be used....

>
> mdadm --create /dev/md/ddf -e ddf /dev/sdc /dev/sdX -n 2
> mdadm --create /dev/md/volume0 /dev/md/ddf --level=10 --layout=f2

Except that ddf doesn't know "RAID10", it knows "RAID1E" with layouts
of "ADJACENT" (like n2) or OFFSET (like o20).
But mdadm/ddf doesn't handle RAID1E yet - I guess it should.

NeilBrown
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html