Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@debian.org> ezt írta (időpont: 2020. jan. 17.,
Pén 23:42):

> On 2019-11-12, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> > Gábor Boskovits <boskovits@gmail.com> skribis:
> >
> >>> + mdadm --create /dev/md0 --verbose --level=stripe --raid-devices=2
> >>> /dev/vdb2 /dev/vdb3
> >>> mdadm: chunk size defaults to 512K
> >>> mdadm: Defaulting to version 1.2 metadata
> >>> [   13.890586] md/raid0:md0: cannot assemble multi-zone RAID0 with
> >>> default_layout setting
> >>> [   13.894691] md/raid0: please set raid0.default_layout to 1 or 2
> >>> [   13.896000] md: pers->run() failed ...
> >>> mdadm: RUN_ARRAY failed: Unknown error 524
> >>> [   13.901603] md: md0 stopped.
> >>> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
> >>>
> >>> Anyone knows what it takes to “set raid0.default_layout to 1 or 2”?
> >>>
> >>
> >> On kernel 5.3.4 and above the
> >> raid0.default_layout=2 kernel boot paramter should be set. We should
> >> generate our grub configuration accordingly.
>
> So, this might be sort of a tangent, but I'm wondering why you're
> testing raid0 (striping, for performance+capacity at risk of data loss)
> instead of raid1 (mirroring, for redundancy, fast reads, slow writes,
> half capacity of storage), or another raid level with more disks (raid5,
> raid6, raid10). raid1 would be the simplest to switch the code to, since
> it uses only two disks.
>
>
> The issue triggering this bug might be a non-issue on other raid levels
> that in my mind might make more sense for rootfs. Or maybe people have
> use-casese for rootfs on raid0 that I'm too uncreative to think of? :)
>

I often see raid 10 as root. I believe it might make sense to test that
setup.

>
>
> live well,
>   vagrant
>