From: mark@mark.mielke.cc
To: Craig James <craig_james@emolecules.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Autodetect of software RAID1+0 fails
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 20:23:34 -0400
Message-ID: <20070602002333.GA11575@mark.mielke.cc> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070601213501.GA23940@uio.no>
References: <C3E62232E3BCF24CBA20D72BFDCB6BF804382037@MI8NYCMAIL08.Mi8.com>
<op.ts5b3kikcigqcu@apollo13>
<46605E24.7070508@emolecules.com>
<20070601213501.GA23940@uio.no>
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 10:57:56AM -0700, Craig James wrote:
> > The Linux kernel doesn't properly detect my software RAID1+0 when I boot
> > up. It detects the two RAID1 arrays, the partitions of which are marked
> > properly. But it can't find the RAID0 on top of that, because there's no
> > corresponding device to auto-detect. The result is that it creates
> > /dev/md0 and /dev/md1 and assembles the RAID1 devices on bootup, but
> > /dev/md2 isn't created, so the RAID0 can't be assembled at boot time.
Hi Craig:
I had the same problem for a short time. There *is* a device to base the
RAID0 off, however, it needs to be recursively detected. mdadm will do this
for you, however, if the device order isn't optimal, it may need some help
via /etc/mdadm.conf. For a while, I used something like:
DEVICE partitions
...
ARRAY /dev/md3 level=raid0 num-devices=2 UUID=10d58416:5cd52161:7703b48e:cd93a0e0
ARRAY /dev/md5 level=raid1 num-devices=2 UUID=1515ac26:033ebf60:fa5930c5:1e1f0f12
ARRAY /dev/md6 level=raid1 num-devices=2 UUID=72ddd3b6:b063445c:d7718865:bb79aad7
My symptoms were that it worked where started from user space, but failed during
reboot without the above hints. I believe if I had defined md5 and md6 before
md3, it may have worked automatically without hints.
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 11:35:01PM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> Either do your md discovery in userspace via mdadm (your distribution can
> probably help you with this), or simply use the raid10 module instead of
> building raid1+0 yourself.
I agree with using the mdadm RAID10 support. RAID1+0 has the
flexibility of allowing you to fine-control the RAID1 vs RAID0 if you
want to add disks later. RAID10 from mdadm has the flexibility that
you don't need an even number of disks. As I don't intend to add disks
to my array - the RAID10 as a single layer, with potentially better
intelligence in terms of performance, appeals to me.
They both worked for me - but I am sticking with the single layer now.
Cheers,
mark
--
mark@mielke.cc / markm@ncf.ca / markm@nortel.com __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
http://mark.mielke.cc/
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: mark@mark.mielke.cc, craig_james@emolecules.com
Subject: Re: Autodetect of software RAID1+0 fails
In-Reply-To: <20070602002333.GA11575@mark.mielke.cc>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox