From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?UTF-8?Q?G=C3=A1bor?= Boskovits Subject: bug#38086: RAID installation script with =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=98mdadm=E2=80=99?= no longer works Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2020 14:29:56 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87sgn18g92.fsf@inria.fr> <877e46m1qd.fsf@gnu.org> <87r1zx902a.fsf@yucca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009b560b059c6a0efb" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:42046) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1isoBr-00079m-LZ for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Jan 2020 08:31:04 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1isoBq-0001hl-99 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Jan 2020 08:31:03 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:34684) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1isoBq-0001hf-6T for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Jan 2020 08:31:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1isoBq-0006xG-4e for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Jan 2020 08:31:02 -0500 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <87r1zx902a.fsf@yucca> List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: Vagrant Cascadian Cc: 38086@debbugs.gnu.org --0000000000009b560b059c6a0efb Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Vagrant Cascadian ezt =C3=ADrta (id=C5=91pont: 2020. j= an. 17., P=C3=A9n 23:42): > On 2019-11-12, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: > > G=C3=A1bor Boskovits skribis: > > > >>> + mdadm --create /dev/md0 --verbose --level=3Dstripe --raid-devices= =3D2 > >>> /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 =E2=80=9Cset raid0.default_layout to 1 = or 2=E2=80=9D? > >>> > >> > >> On kernel 5.3.4 and above the > >> raid0.default_layout=3D2 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 > --0000000000009b560b059c6a0efb Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@debian.org> ezt =C3=ADrta (id=C5=91pont: 2020. jan. 17= ., P=C3=A9n 23:42):
On 2019-11-12, = Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote:
> G=C3=A1bor Boskovits <boskovits@gmail.com> skribis:
>
>>> + mdadm --create /dev/md0 --verbose --level=3Dstripe --raid-de= vices=3D2
>>> /dev/vdb2 /dev/vdb3
>>> mdadm: chunk size defaults to 512K
>>> mdadm: Defaulting to version 1.2 metadata
>>> [=C2=A0 =C2=A013.890586] md/raid0:md0: cannot assemble multi-z= one RAID0 with
>>> default_layout setting
>>> [=C2=A0 =C2=A013.894691] md/raid0: please set raid0.default_la= yout to 1 or 2
>>> [=C2=A0 =C2=A013.896000] md: pers->run() failed ...
>>> mdadm: RUN_ARRAY failed: Unknown error 524
>>> [=C2=A0 =C2=A013.901603] md: md0 stopped.
>>> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------= ->8---
>>>
>>> Anyone knows what it takes to =E2=80=9Cset raid0.default_layou= t to 1 or 2=E2=80=9D?
>>>
>>
>> On kernel 5.3.4 and above the
>> raid0.default_layout=3D2 kernel boot paramter should be set. We sh= ould
>> 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? :)<= br>

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


live well,
=C2=A0 vagrant
--0000000000009b560b059c6a0efb--