Linux mdadm superblock question.

Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Justin Piszcz]

Hi,

I may be converting a host to ext4 and was curious, is 0.90 still the only 
superblock version for mdadm/raid-1 that you can boot from without having 
to create an initrd/etc?

Are there any benefits to using a superblock > 0.90 for a raid-1 boot 
volume < 2TB?

Justin.

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Michael Evans]

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@lucidpixels.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I may be converting a host to ext4 and was curious, is 0.90 still the only
> superblock version for mdadm/raid-1 that you can boot from without having to
> create an initrd/etc?
>
> Are there any benefits to using a superblock > 0.90 for a raid-1 boot volume
> < 2TB?
>
> Justin.
> --
> 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
>

You need the superblock at the end of the partition:  If you read the
manual that is clearly either version 0.90 OR 1.0 (NOT 1.1 and also
NOT 1.2; those use the same superblock layout but different
locations).

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Robin Hill]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1232 bytes --]

On Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 05:52:41PM -0800, Michael Evans wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@lucidpixels.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I may be converting a host to ext4 and was curious, is 0.90 still the only
> > superblock version for mdadm/raid-1 that you can boot from without having to
> > create an initrd/etc?
> >
> > Are there any benefits to using a superblock > 0.90 for a raid-1 boot volume
> > < 2TB?
> >
> > Justin.
> 
> You need the superblock at the end of the partition:  If you read the
> manual that is clearly either version 0.90 OR 1.0 (NOT 1.1 and also
> NOT 1.2; those use the same superblock layout but different
> locations).
> 
You also need it to be auto-assembled by the kernel, which is only
version 0.90.

As for benefits, there's a number of benefits of 1.x over 0.90 - I don't
think any of them are terribly important for a small boot partition
though.  There's also benefits to having an initrd anyway.

Cheers,
    Robin
-- 
     ___        
    ( ' }     |       Robin Hill        <robin@robinhill.me.uk> |
   / / )      | Little Jim says ....                            |
  // !!       |      "He fallen in de water !!"                 |

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Mr. James W. Laferriere]

 	Hello Robin ,

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010, Robin Hill wrote:
> On Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 05:52:41PM -0800, Michael Evans wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@lucidpixels.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I may be converting a host to ext4 and was curious, is 0.90 still the only
>>> superblock version for mdadm/raid-1 that you can boot from without having to
>>> create an initrd/etc?
>>>
>>> Are there any benefits to using a superblock > 0.90 for a raid-1 boot volume
>>> < 2TB?
>>>
>>> Justin.
>>
>> You need the superblock at the end of the partition:  If you read the
>> manual that is clearly either version 0.90 OR 1.0 (NOT 1.1 and also
>> NOT 1.2; those use the same superblock layout but different
>> locations).
>>
> You also need it to be auto-assembled by the kernel, which is only
> version 0.90.
>
> As for benefits, there's a number of benefits of 1.x over 0.90 - I don't
> think any of them are terribly important for a small boot partition
> though.  There's also benefits to having an initrd anyway.
>
> Cheers,
>    Robin

 	One can use the 'append=""' functionality of lilo & I am user that 
Grub2(and family) has some method of doing the same .
 	ie:
append=" md=1,/dev/sda1,/dev/sdb1,/dev/sdc1,/dev/sdd1 md=2,/dev/sda2,/dev/sdb2,/dev/sdc2,/dev/sdd2 md=3,/dev/sda3,/dev/sdb3 md=4,/dev/sda4,/dev/sdb4 vt.default_utf8=0 sysrq_always_enabled=1"

 	Not sure if this would be usable with a 1.1+ version of the MD headers .

 	I'd really like to see a REAL case that shows a good example of the use 
of initrd that absolutely can NOT be done only because of someones 
unwillingness to create it in the kernel or to allow others too .

 		Hth ,  JimL
-- 
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| James   W.   Laferriere | System    Techniques | Give me VMS     |
| Network&System Engineer | 3237     Holden Road |  Give me Linux  |
| babydr@baby-dragons.com | Fairbanks, AK. 99709 |   only  on  AXP |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[martin f krafft]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 620 bytes --]

also sprach Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@lucidpixels.com> [2010.02.12.1200 +1300]:
> I may be converting a host to ext4 and was curious, is 0.90 still the
> only superblock version for mdadm/raid-1 that you can boot from
> without having to create an initrd/etc?
> 
> Are there any benefits to using a superblock > 0.90 for a raid-1 boot
> volume < 2TB?

FYI: http://bugs.debian.org/492897

-- 
martin | http://madduck.net/ | http://two.sentenc.es/
 
it may look like i'm just sitting here doing nothing.
but i'm really actively waiting
for all my problems to go away.
 
spamtraps: madduck.bogus@madduck.net

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/) --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Giovanni Tessore]

> I may be converting a host to ext4 and was curious, is 0.90 still the 
> only superblock version for mdadm/raid-1 that you can boot from 
> without having to create an initrd/etc?
>
> Are there any benefits to using a superblock > 0.90 for a raid-1 boot 
> volume < 2TB?

I recently reinstalled my systems, and I had to use superblock 0.9 to be 
able to boot ext4 from raid-1 (kernel 2.6.31 - grub2 1.97-beta4).
I didn't go deep with it as I was quite in hurry, so I'm not sure if it 
depends by grub2 or by kernel's md autodetection at boot.
I used superblock 1.1 for the others md devices.

The advantage of superblocks >= 1.0 that I prefere is that they persist 
the number of recovered read errors; this allow to monitor (at the 
moment manually via /sys/block/mdXX/devYY/errors) across system restarts 
the health of devices into the array, useful for raid-5 and 2-disks raid-1.

Regards

-- 
Cordiali saluti.
Yours faithfully.

Giovanni Tessore

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Michael Evans]

On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Giovanni Tessore <giotex@texsoft.it> wrote:
>
>> I may be converting a host to ext4 and was curious, is 0.90 still the only
>> superblock version for mdadm/raid-1 that you can boot from without having to
>> create an initrd/etc?
>>
>> Are there any benefits to using a superblock > 0.90 for a raid-1 boot
>> volume < 2TB?
>
> I recently reinstalled my systems, and I had to use superblock 0.9 to be
> able to boot ext4 from raid-1 (kernel 2.6.31 - grub2 1.97-beta4).
> I didn't go deep with it as I was quite in hurry, so I'm not sure if it
> depends by grub2 or by kernel's md autodetection at boot.
> I used superblock 1.1 for the others md devices.
>
> The advantage of superblocks >= 1.0 that I prefere is that they persist the
> number of recovered read errors; this allow to monitor (at the moment
> manually via /sys/block/mdXX/devYY/errors) across system restarts the health
> of devices into the array, useful for raid-5 and 2-disks raid-1.
>
> Regards
>
> --
> Cordiali saluti.
> Yours faithfully.
>
> Giovanni Tessore
>
>
> --
> 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
>

mdadm 1.0 block devices, since stored at the end, can still be used
/read only/ the same way that 0.90 devices were used before grub knew
how to talk to them.  By looking at the underlying block devices and
ignoring their tails.  This does however only hold for raid-1 layouts
with the 1.0 or 0.90 format labels.
--
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: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Giovanni Tessore]

>> I recently reinstalled my systems, and I had to use superblock 0.9 to be
>> able to boot ext4 from raid-1 (kernel 2.6.31 - grub2 1.97-beta4).
>> I didn't go deep with it as I was quite in hurry, so I'm not sure if it
>> depends by grub2 or by kernel's md autodetection at boot.
>> I used superblock 1.1 for the others md devices.
>>
>> ...
> mdadm 1.0 block devices, since stored at the end, can still be used
> /read only/ the same way that 0.90 devices were used before grub knew
> how to talk to them.  By looking at the underlying block devices and
> ignoring their tails.  This does however only hold for raid-1 layouts
> with the 1.0 or 0.90 format labels.

I guessed so, infact I created superblock 1.0 for the raid-1 devices md0 
(root) and md1 (swap), while 1.1 for the others .. but it didn't work 
and I had to revert to 0.9 for root and swap ...

Regards

-- 
Cordiali saluti.
Yours faithfully.

Giovanni Tessore

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Michael Evans]

On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 1:35 AM, Giovanni Tessore <giotex@texsoft.it> wrote:
>
>>> I recently reinstalled my systems, and I had to use superblock 0.9 to be
>>> able to boot ext4 from raid-1 (kernel 2.6.31 - grub2 1.97-beta4).
>>> I didn't go deep with it as I was quite in hurry, so I'm not sure if it
>>> depends by grub2 or by kernel's md autodetection at boot.
>>> I used superblock 1.1 for the others md devices.
>>>
>>> ...
>>
>> mdadm 1.0 block devices, since stored at the end, can still be used
>> /read only/ the same way that 0.90 devices were used before grub knew
>> how to talk to them.  By looking at the underlying block devices and
>> ignoring their tails.  This does however only hold for raid-1 layouts
>> with the 1.0 or 0.90 format labels.
>
> I guessed so, infact I created superblock 1.0 for the raid-1 devices md0
> (root) and md1 (swap), while 1.1 for the others .. but it didn't work and I
> had to revert to 0.9 for root and swap ...
>
> Regards
>
> --
> Cordiali saluti.
> Yours faithfully.
>
> Giovanni Tessore
>
>
> --
> 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
>

Just a guess, but did you tell grub root was /dev/md0 or did you say
root was /dev/sd(whatever backs md0) ?
--
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: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Giovanni Tessore]

>>>> I recently reinstalled my systems, and I had to use superblock 0.9 to be
>>>> able to boot ext4 from raid-1 (kernel 2.6.31 - grub2 1.97-beta4).
>>>> I didn't go deep with it as I was quite in hurry, so I'm not sure if it
>>>> depends by grub2 or by kernel's md autodetection at boot.
>>>> I used superblock 1.1 for the others md devices.
>>>>         
>>> mdadm 1.0 block devices, since stored at the end, can still be used
>>> /read only/ the same way that 0.90 devices were used before grub knew
>>> how to talk to them.  By looking at the underlying block devices and
>>> ignoring their tails.  This does however only hold for raid-1 layouts
>>> with the 1.0 or 0.90 format labels.
>>>       
>> I guessed so, infact I created superblock 1.0 for the raid-1 devices md0
>> (root) and md1 (swap), while 1.1 for the others .. but it didn't work and I
>> had to revert to 0.9 for root and swap ...
>>
>>     
>
> Just a guess, but did you tell grub root was /dev/md0 or did you say
> root was /dev/sd(whatever backs md0) ?
>   

Root was set to (md0), I followed the installer of the distro (ubuntu 
9.10 srv) and also tried manually with update-grub and then grub-install 
/dev/sda, grub-install /dev/sdb, grub-install /dev/sdc (3 disk raid-1)
Both failed with superblock 1.0, giving a message like 'missing mapping 
of device /dev/md0', infact into /boot/grub/device.map it was missing 
(even for 0.9), but also adding it ( (md0) /dev/md0 )didn't help, giving 
other error messages.

Btw, even if I missed something, the point is:
- with 0.9 it worked painless
- with 1.0 it didn't work
donno if it dependes by distro, kernel of md, but some different 
behaviour relative to superblock 0.9 and 1.0 existed.
I didn't investigate further as I was in extreme hurry to setup the system.

Regards

-- 
Cordiali saluti.
Yours faithfully.

Giovanni Tessore

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 02/11/2010 05:52 PM, Michael Evans wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@lucidpixels.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I may be converting a host to ext4 and was curious, is 0.90 still the only
>> superblock version for mdadm/raid-1 that you can boot from without having to
>> create an initrd/etc?
>>
>> Are there any benefits to using a superblock > 0.90 for a raid-1 boot volume
>> < 2TB?
>>
>> Justin.
>> --
>> 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
>>
> 
> You need the superblock at the end of the partition:  If you read the
> manual that is clearly either version 0.90 OR 1.0 (NOT 1.1 and also
> NOT 1.2; those use the same superblock layout but different
> locations).

0.9 has the *serious* problem that it is hard to distinguish a whole-volume

However, apparently mdadm recently switched to a 1.1 default.  I
strongly urge Neil to change that to either 1.0 and 1.2, as I have
started to get complaints from users that they have made RAID volumes
with newer mdadm which apparently default to 1.1, and then want to boot
from them (without playing MBR games like Grub does.)  I have to tell
them that they have to regenerate their disks -- the superblock occupies
the boot sector and there is nothing I can do about it.  It's the same
pathology XFS has.

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Justin Piszcz]

On Sat, 13 Feb 2010, H. Peter Anvin wrote:

> On 02/11/2010 05:52 PM, Michael Evans wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@lucidpixels.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I may be converting a host to ext4 and was curious, is 0.90 still the only
>>> superblock version for mdadm/raid-1 that you can boot from without having to
>>> create an initrd/etc?
>>>
>>> Are there any benefits to using a superblock > 0.90 for a raid-1 boot volume
>>> < 2TB?
>>>
>>> Justin.
>>> --
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> You need the superblock at the end of the partition:  If you read the
>> manual that is clearly either version 0.90 OR 1.0 (NOT 1.1 and also
>> NOT 1.2; those use the same superblock layout but different
>> locations).
>
> 0.9 has the *serious* problem that it is hard to distinguish a whole-volume
>
> However, apparently mdadm recently switched to a 1.1 default.  I
> strongly urge Neil to change that to either 1.0 and 1.2, as I have
> started to get complaints from users that they have made RAID volumes
> with newer mdadm which apparently default to 1.1, and then want to boot
> from them (without playing MBR games like Grub does.)  I have to tell
> them that they have to regenerate their disks -- the superblock occupies
> the boot sector and there is nothing I can do about it.  It's the same
> pathology XFS has.
>
> 	-hpa
>

My original question was does the newer superblock do anything special or 
offer new features *BESIDES* the quicker resync?

Justin.

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[david]

On Sat, 13 Feb 2010, Justin Piszcz wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
>> On 02/11/2010 05:52 PM, Michael Evans wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@lucidpixels.com> 
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> I may be converting a host to ext4 and was curious, is 0.90 still the 
>>>> only
>>>> superblock version for mdadm/raid-1 that you can boot from without having 
>>>> to
>>>> create an initrd/etc?
>>>> 
>>>> Are there any benefits to using a superblock > 0.90 for a raid-1 boot 
>>>> volume
>>>> < 2TB?
>>>> 
>>>> Justin.
>>>> --
>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> You need the superblock at the end of the partition:  If you read the
>>> manual that is clearly either version 0.90 OR 1.0 (NOT 1.1 and also
>>> NOT 1.2; those use the same superblock layout but different
>>> locations).
>> 
>> 0.9 has the *serious* problem that it is hard to distinguish a whole-volume
>> 
>> However, apparently mdadm recently switched to a 1.1 default.  I
>> strongly urge Neil to change that to either 1.0 and 1.2, as I have
>> started to get complaints from users that they have made RAID volumes
>> with newer mdadm which apparently default to 1.1, and then want to boot
>> from them (without playing MBR games like Grub does.)  I have to tell
>> them that they have to regenerate their disks -- the superblock occupies
>> the boot sector and there is nothing I can do about it.  It's the same
>> pathology XFS has.
>>
>> 	-hpa
>> 
>
> My original question was does the newer superblock do anything special or 
> offer new features *BESIDES* the quicker resync?

the older superblocks have limits on the number of devices that can be 
part of the raid set.

David Lang

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Michael Evans]

On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 12:49 PM,  <david@lang.hm> wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010, Justin Piszcz wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>
>>> On 02/11/2010 05:52 PM, Michael Evans wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@lucidpixels.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I may be converting a host to ext4 and was curious, is 0.90 still the
>>>>> only
>>>>> superblock version for mdadm/raid-1 that you can boot from without
>>>>> having to
>>>>> create an initrd/etc?
>>>>>
>>>>> Are there any benefits to using a superblock > 0.90 for a raid-1 boot
>>>>> volume
>>>>> < 2TB?
>>>>>
>>>>> Justin.
>>>>> --
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You need the superblock at the end of the partition:  If you read the
>>>> manual that is clearly either version 0.90 OR 1.0 (NOT 1.1 and also
>>>> NOT 1.2; those use the same superblock layout but different
>>>> locations).
>>>
>>> 0.9 has the *serious* problem that it is hard to distinguish a
>>> whole-volume
>>>
>>> However, apparently mdadm recently switched to a 1.1 default.  I
>>> strongly urge Neil to change that to either 1.0 and 1.2, as I have
>>> started to get complaints from users that they have made RAID volumes
>>> with newer mdadm which apparently default to 1.1, and then want to boot
>>> from them (without playing MBR games like Grub does.)  I have to tell
>>> them that they have to regenerate their disks -- the superblock occupies
>>> the boot sector and there is nothing I can do about it.  It's the same
>>> pathology XFS has.
>>>
>>>        -hpa
>>>
>>
>> My original question was does the newer superblock do anything special or
>> offer new features *BESIDES* the quicker resync?
>
> the older superblocks have limits on the number of devices that can be part
> of the raid set.
>
> David Lang
>

The 1.1 and 1.2 formats ALSO play more nicely with stacking partition
contents.  LVM, filesystems, and partition info all begin at the start
of a block device; putting the md labels there too makes it obvious
what order to unpack the structures in.
--
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: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Michael Evans]

On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 12:49 PM,  <david@lang.hm> wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010, Justin Piszcz wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>
>>> On 02/11/2010 05:52 PM, Michael Evans wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@lucidpixels.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I may be converting a host to ext4 and was curious, is 0.90 still the
>>>>> only
>>>>> superblock version for mdadm/raid-1 that you can boot from without
>>>>> having to
>>>>> create an initrd/etc?
>>>>>
>>>>> Are there any benefits to using a superblock > 0.90 for a raid-1 boot
>>>>> volume
>>>>> < 2TB?
>>>>>
>>>>> Justin.
>>>>> --
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You need the superblock at the end of the partition:  If you read the
>>>> manual that is clearly either version 0.90 OR 1.0 (NOT 1.1 and also
>>>> NOT 1.2; those use the same superblock layout but different
>>>> locations).
>>>
>>> 0.9 has the *serious* problem that it is hard to distinguish a
>>> whole-volume
>>>
>>> However, apparently mdadm recently switched to a 1.1 default.  I
>>> strongly urge Neil to change that to either 1.0 and 1.2, as I have
>>> started to get complaints from users that they have made RAID volumes
>>> with newer mdadm which apparently default to 1.1, and then want to boot
>>> from them (without playing MBR games like Grub does.)  I have to tell
>>> them that they have to regenerate their disks -- the superblock occupies
>>> the boot sector and there is nothing I can do about it.  It's the same
>>> pathology XFS has.
>>>
>>>        -hpa
>>>
>>
>> My original question was does the newer superblock do anything special or
>> offer new features *BESIDES* the quicker resync?
>
> the older superblocks have limits on the number of devices that can be part
> of the raid set.
>
> David Lang
>

The 1.1 and 1.2 formats ALSO play more nicely with stacking partition
contents.  LVM, filesystems, and partition info all begin at the start
of a block device; putting the md labels there too makes it obvious
what order to unpack the structures in.

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 02/13/2010 12:07 PM, Justin Piszcz wrote:
> 
> My original question was does the newer superblock do anything special
> or offer new features *BESIDES* the quicker resync?
> 

0.90 has a very bad problem, which is that it is hard to distinguish
between a RAID partition at the end of volume and a full RAID device.
This is because 0.90 doesn't actually tell you the start of the device.

Then, of course, there are a lot of limitations on size, number of
devices, and so on in 0.90.

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Asdo]

H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 02/13/2010 12:07 PM, Justin Piszcz wrote:
>   
> 0.90 has a very bad problem, which is that it is hard to distinguish
> between a RAID partition at the end of volume and a full RAID device.
> This is because 0.90 doesn't actually tell you the start of the device.
>
> Then, of course, there are a lot of limitations on size, number of
> devices, and so on in 0.90.
>
> 	-hpa
>   
I don't understand...
In a system we have, the root filesystem on a raid-6 which is on second 
(and last) partitions of many disks.
It always assembled correctly, it never tried to assemble the whole device.
(on the first partition there is a raid1 with boot)
So what's the problem exactly with not marking the beginning?

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 02/14/2010 12:25 PM, Asdo wrote:
> I don't understand...
> In a system we have, the root filesystem on a raid-6 which is on second
> (and last) partitions of many disks.
> It always assembled correctly, it never tried to assemble the whole device.
> (on the first partition there is a raid1 with boot)
> So what's the problem exactly with not marking the beginning?

In Fedora 12, for example, Dracut tries to make the distinction between
whole RAID device and a partition device, and utterly fails -- often
resulting in data loss.

With a pointer to the beginning this would have been a trivial thing to
detect.

IMO it would make sense to support autoassemble for 1.0 superblocks, and
making them the default.  The purpose would be to get everyone off 0.9.
 However, *any* default is better than 1.1.

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Henrique de Moraes Holschuh]

On Sun, 14 Feb 2010, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> IMO it would make sense to support autoassemble for 1.0 superblocks, and
> making them the default.  The purpose would be to get everyone off 0.9.
>  However, *any* default is better than 1.1.

Well, FWIW, I would happily use (and recommend) 1.0 with auto-assemble
(after verifying all the emergency repair toolset in use where I work has
been upgraded to support it) in distros where the bootloader has enough of a
clue to not bork on md-1.0 devices.  Which should be most of the current
crop.

-- 
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Rudy Zijlstra]

H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> In Fedora 12, for example, Dracut tries to make the distinction between
> whole RAID device and a partition device, and utterly fails -- often
> resulting in data loss.
>
>   
i do not use Fedora/redhat and do not intent to ever try them again... 
still, the point is valid
> With a pointer to the beginning this would have been a trivial thing to
> detect.
>
> IMO it would make sense to support autoassemble for 1.0 superblocks, and
> making them the default.  The purpose would be to get everyone off 0.9.
>  However, *any* default is better than 1.1.
>
> 	-hpa
>
>   
As long is autodetect is supported in the kernel, i am willing to 
upgrade to 1.0 superblocks. BUT i need the autodetect in the kernel, as 
i refuse to use initrd for production servers.

Cheers,


Rudy

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Mr. James W. Laferriere]

 	Hello All ,

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010, Rudy Zijlstra wrote:
> H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> In Fedora 12, for example, Dracut tries to make the distinction between
>> whole RAID device and a partition device, and utterly fails -- often
>> resulting in data loss.
>> 
> i do not use Fedora/redhat and do not intent to ever try them again... still, 
> the point is valid
>> With a pointer to the beginning this would have been a trivial thing to
>> detect.
>> 
>> IMO it would make sense to support autoassemble for 1.0 superblocks, and
>> making them the default.  The purpose would be to get everyone off 0.9.
>>  However, *any* default is better than 1.1.
>> 	-hpa
> As long is autodetect is supported in the kernel, i am willing to upgrade to 
> 1.0 superblocks. BUT i need the autodetect in the kernel, as i refuse to use 
> initrd for production servers.
> Cheers,
> Rudy
 	I also have to agree with Rudy in this matter .

 		Tia ,  JimL
-- 
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| James   W.   Laferriere | System    Techniques | Give me VMS     |
| Network&System Engineer | 3237     Holden Road |  Give me Linux  |
| babydr@baby-dragons.com | Fairbanks, AK. 99709 |   only  on  AXP |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Luca Berra]

On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 06:40:31PM -0900, Mr. James W. Laferriere wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010, Rudy Zijlstra wrote:
>> H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>> IMO it would make sense to support autoassemble for 1.0 superblocks, and
sorry kernel autodetect is borked

>>> making them the default.  The purpose would be to get everyone off 0.9.
>>>  However, *any* default is better than 1.1.

there has been a discussion on what format should be made as the
default, under the subject: "[ANNOUNCE] mdadm-3.1 has been withdrawn",
iirc 1.1 was chosen as the default, versus 1.2, because it puts the
superblock at the very same place as the partition table, thus
preventing any possible confusion between partitioned disk and whole
disk md. (yes someone managed to put both a whole disk 1.2 superblock
and a valid partition table on the same device....)

>> As long is autodetect is supported in the kernel, i am willing to upgrade 
>> to 1.0 superblocks. BUT i need the autodetect in the kernel, as i refuse 
it wont be implemented

>> to use initrd for production servers.
> 	I also have to agree with Rudy in this matter .
>
then use kernel command line

L.

-- 
Luca Berra -- bluca@comedia.it
           Communication Media & Services S.r.l.
    /"\
    \ /     ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN
     X        AGAINST HTML MAIL
    / \

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Neil Brown]

On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 11:58:03 -0800
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:

> On 02/11/2010 05:52 PM, Michael Evans wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@lucidpixels.com> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I may be converting a host to ext4 and was curious, is 0.90 still the only
> >> superblock version for mdadm/raid-1 that you can boot from without having to
> >> create an initrd/etc?
> >>
> >> Are there any benefits to using a superblock > 0.90 for a raid-1 boot volume
> >> < 2TB?
> >>
> >> Justin.
> >> --
> >> 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
> >>
> > 
> > You need the superblock at the end of the partition:  If you read the
> > manual that is clearly either version 0.90 OR 1.0 (NOT 1.1 and also
> > NOT 1.2; those use the same superblock layout but different
> > locations).
> 
> 0.9 has the *serious* problem that it is hard to distinguish a whole-volume
> 
> However, apparently mdadm recently switched to a 1.1 default.  I
> strongly urge Neil to change that to either 1.0 and 1.2, as I have
> started to get complaints from users that they have made RAID volumes
> with newer mdadm which apparently default to 1.1, and then want to boot
> from them (without playing MBR games like Grub does.)  I have to tell
> them that they have to regenerate their disks -- the superblock occupies
> the boot sector and there is nothing I can do about it.  It's the same
> pathology XFS has.

When mdadm defaults to 1.0 for a RAID1 it prints a warning to the effect that
the array might not be suitable to store '/boot', and requests confirmation.

So I assume that the people who are having this problem either do not read,
or are using some partitioning tool that runs mdadm under the hood using
"--run" to avoid the need for confirmation.  It would be nice to confirm if
that was the case, and find out what tool is being used.

If an array is not being used for /boot (or /) then I still think that 1.1 is
the better choice as it removes the possibility for confusion over partition
tables.

I guess I could try defaulting to 1.2 in a partition, and 1.1 on a
whole-device.  That might be a suitable compromise.

How do people cope with XFS??

NeilBrown

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Neil Brown]

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:12:43 +0100
Luca Berra <bluca@comedia.it> wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 06:40:31PM -0900, Mr. James W. Laferriere wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 Feb 2010, Rudy Zijlstra wrote:
> >> H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >>> IMO it would make sense to support autoassemble for 1.0 superblocks, and
> sorry kernel autodetect is borked
> 
> >>> making them the default.  The purpose would be to get everyone off 0.9.
> >>>  However, *any* default is better than 1.1.
> 
> there has been a discussion on what format should be made as the
> default, under the subject: "[ANNOUNCE] mdadm-3.1 has been withdrawn",
> iirc 1.1 was chosen as the default, versus 1.2, because it puts the
> superblock at the very same place as the partition table, thus
> preventing any possible confusion between partitioned disk and whole
> disk md. (yes someone managed to put both a whole disk 1.2 superblock
> and a valid partition table on the same device....)
> 
> >> As long is autodetect is supported in the kernel, i am willing to upgrade 
> >> to 1.0 superblocks. BUT i need the autodetect in the kernel, as i refuse 
> it wont be implemented
> 
> >> to use initrd for production servers.
> > 	I also have to agree with Rudy in this matter .
> >
> then use kernel command line

I cannot agree with this recommendation.
Using a kernel command line like:

   md=0,/dev/sda1,/dev/sdb1

will assemble v1.x arrays without an initrd.  However it depends on the device
names (sda, sdb) being stable.  If you also have an 'sdc', and sda dies in
such a way that it cannot be seen at all, then on the next reboot, md will
try to assemble sdb1 and sdc1 (which have now been renamed to sda1 and sdb1)
and this will fail.  So it works when everything else is working, but can
then fail exactly when you need it the most.

There are other edge cases that can confuse autodetect as well.  I put a lot
of effort into getting the assembly algorithms in mdadm to be as robust as I
could make them, and I really recommend using mdadm to assemble all arrays,
through an initrd if / is an md array.

If you really don't want to trust a distro initrd, then the mdadm source code
contains instructions for building a minimal initramfs which just runs mdadm
to assemble the root device, then mounts and pivot_roots to that.

If people have problems with initramfs, then I recommend filing bug reports
rather than simply choosing not to use it.  It isn't going to go away.

NeilBrown

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Neil Brown]

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 18:00:23 -0500 (EST)
Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@lucidpixels.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I may be converting a host to ext4 and was curious, is 0.90 still the only 
> superblock version for mdadm/raid-1 that you can boot from without having 
> to create an initrd/etc?
> 
> Are there any benefits to using a superblock > 0.90 for a raid-1 boot 
> volume < 2TB?

The only noticeable differences that I can think of are:
 1/ If you reboot during recovery of a spare, then 0.90 will restart the
    recovery at the start, while 1.x will restart from where it was up to.
 2/ The /sys/class/block/mdXX/md/dev-YYY/errors counter is reset on each
    re-assembly with 0.90, but is preserved across stop/start with 1.x
 3/ If your partition starts on a multiple of 64K from the start of the
    device and is the last partition and contains 0.90 metadata, then
    mdadm can get confused by it.
 4/ If you move the devices to a host with a different arch and different
    byte-ordering, then extra effort will be needed to see the array for
    0.90, but not for 1.x

I suspect none of these is a big issue.

It is likely that future extensions will only be supported on 1.x metadata.
For example I hope to add support for storing a bad-block list, so that a
read error during recovery will only be fatal for that block, not the whole
recovery process.  This is unlikely ever to be supported on 0.90.  However
it may not be possible to hot-enable it on 1.x either, depending on how much
space has been reserved for extra metadata, so there is no guarantee that
using 1.x now makes you future-proof.

And yes, 0.90 is still the only superblock version that supports in-kernel
autodetect, and I have no intention of adding in-kernel autodetect for any
other version.

NeilBrown

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Neil Brown]

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 12:53:53 -0900 (AKST)
"Mr. James W. Laferriere" <babydr@baby-dragons.com> wrote:

>  	Hello Robin ,
> 
> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010, Robin Hill wrote:
> > On Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 05:52:41PM -0800, Michael Evans wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@lucidpixels.com> wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I may be converting a host to ext4 and was curious, is 0.90 still the only
> >>> superblock version for mdadm/raid-1 that you can boot from without having to
> >>> create an initrd/etc?
> >>>
> >>> Are there any benefits to using a superblock > 0.90 for a raid-1 boot volume
> >>> < 2TB?
> >>>
> >>> Justin.
> >>
> >> You need the superblock at the end of the partition:  If you read the
> >> manual that is clearly either version 0.90 OR 1.0 (NOT 1.1 and also
> >> NOT 1.2; those use the same superblock layout but different
> >> locations).
> >>
> > You also need it to be auto-assembled by the kernel, which is only
> > version 0.90.
> >
> > As for benefits, there's a number of benefits of 1.x over 0.90 - I don't
> > think any of them are terribly important for a small boot partition
> > though.  There's also benefits to having an initrd anyway.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >    Robin
> 
>  	One can use the 'append=""' functionality of lilo & I am user that 
> Grub2(and family) has some method of doing the same .
>  	ie:
> append=" md=1,/dev/sda1,/dev/sdb1,/dev/sdc1,/dev/sdd1 md=2,/dev/sda2,/dev/sdb2,/dev/sdc2,/dev/sdd2 md=3,/dev/sda3,/dev/sdb3 md=4,/dev/sda4,/dev/sdb4 vt.default_utf8=0 sysrq_always_enabled=1"
>

As I said in a previous Email, I do not recommend this.  If a device fails
and is removed, then on the next reboot all subsequent device names can
change.  So assembling arrays be name is not safe.
 
>  	Not sure if this would be usable with a 1.1+ version of the MD headers .

Though yes: it does work with v1.x metadata.

> 
>  	I'd really like to see a REAL case that shows a good example of the use 
> of initrd that absolutely can NOT be done only because of someones 
> unwillingness to create it in the kernel or to allow others too .

Sure, anything can be done in the kernel.  It doesn't follow that everything
should be done in the kernel.
There are number of corner cases that can make assembling md arrays messy.
Most of these cases never happen for most people, but I still want to handle
them as robustly as possible.
I would rather do that just in mdadm, not in the kernel.

NeilBrown

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 02/15/2010 04:27 PM, Neil Brown wrote:
> 
> When mdadm defaults to 1.0 for a RAID1 it prints a warning to the effect that
> the array might not be suitable to store '/boot', and requests confirmation.
> 
> So I assume that the people who are having this problem either do not read,
> or are using some partitioning tool that runs mdadm under the hood using
> "--run" to avoid the need for confirmation.  It would be nice to confirm if
> that was the case, and find out what tool is being used.

My guess is that they are using the latter.  However, some of it is
probably also a matter of not planning ahead, or not understanding the
error message.  I'll forward one email privately (don't want to forward
a private email to a list.)

> If an array is not being used for /boot (or /) then I still think that 1.1 is
> the better choice as it removes the possibility for confusion over partition
> tables.
> 
> I guess I could try defaulting to 1.2 in a partition, and 1.1 on a
> whole-device.  That might be a suitable compromise.

In some ways, 1.1 is even more toxic on a whole-device, since that means
that it is physically impossible to boot off of it -- the hardware will
only ever read the first sector (MBR).

> How do people cope with XFS??

There are three options:

a) either don't boot from it (separate /boot);
b) use a bootloader which installs in the MBR and
hopefully-unpartitioned disk areas (e.g. Grub);
c) use a nonstandard custom MBR.

Neither (b) or (c), of course, allow for chainloading from another OS
install and thus are bad for interoperability.

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[david]

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010, H. Peter Anvin wrote:

> On 02/15/2010 04:27 PM, Neil Brown wrote:
>
> There are three options:
>
> a) either don't boot from it (separate /boot);
> b) use a bootloader which installs in the MBR and
> hopefully-unpartitioned disk areas (e.g. Grub);
> c) use a nonstandard custom MBR.
>
> Neither (b) or (c), of course, allow for chainloading from another OS
> install and thus are bad for interoperability.

I have had no problems with XFS partitions and lilo as the bootloader. 
I've been doing this for a couple of years now without realizing that 
there is supposed to be a problem.

David Lang

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[CaT]

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 05:52:41PM -0800, Michael Evans wrote:
> You need the superblock at the end of the partition:  If you read the
> manual that is clearly either version 0.90 OR 1.0 (NOT 1.1 and also

For lilo, at least, this is not so:

http://www.sfr-fresh.com/linux/misc/lilo-22.8.src.tar.gz:a/lilo-22.8/raid.c

Line 145:

if (ioctl(md_fd,RAID_VERSION,&md_version_info) < 0)

Line 155:

if (ioctl(md_fd,GET_ARRAY_INFO,&md_array_info) < 0)

Lines 160-168:

if ((md_array_info.major_version != md_version_info.major) &&
	(md_array_info.minor_version != md_version_info.minor)) {
    die("Inconsistent Raid version information on %s   (RV=%d.%d GAI=%d.%d)",
        boot,
              (int)md_version_info.major,
              (int)md_version_info.minor,
              (int)md_array_info.major_version,
              (int)md_array_info.minor_version);
    }

It's 0.90 or nothing as md_version_info gives 0.90 due to:

/linux/drivers/md/md.c:
Line 4599:

        ver.major = MD_MAJOR_VERSION;
        ver.minor = MD_MINOR_VERSION;

linux/include/linux/raid/md_u.h:
Line 23:

#define MD_MAJOR_VERSION                0
#define MD_MINOR_VERSION                90

I got bitten by this as I was testing different raid superblocks on a new
setup. Wound up hand-making my own initramfs, which was a pain (right pain
to debug). Would prefer not to have one tbh.

-- 
  "A search of his car uncovered pornography, a homemade sex aid, women's 
  stockings and a Jack Russell terrier."
    - http://www.news.com.au/story/0%2C27574%2C24675808-421%2C00.html

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[John Robinson]

On 16/02/2010 03:18, david@lang.hm wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> 
>> On 02/15/2010 04:27 PM, Neil Brown wrote:
>>
>> There are three options:
>>
>> a) either don't boot from it (separate /boot);
>> b) use a bootloader which installs in the MBR and
>> hopefully-unpartitioned disk areas (e.g. Grub);
>> c) use a nonstandard custom MBR.
>>
>> Neither (b) or (c), of course, allow for chainloading from another OS
>> install and thus are bad for interoperability.
> 
> I have had no problems with XFS partitions and lilo as the bootloader. 
> I've been doing this for a couple of years now without realizing that 
> there is supposed to be a problem.

There isn't, if you use partitions. It could (would) go wrong if you 
tried to put an XFS filesystem, or md RAID with a v1.1 superblock, on a 
whole disc without a partition table *and* you tried to put a bootloader 
on. I can't say it's ever occurred to me to do that, because I always 
assumed that whatever I put in a partition used all of it, and I 
couldn't expect to double-book the beginning of it and have it work.

Cheers,

John.

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[John Robinson]

On 16/02/2010 03:18, david@lang.hm wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> 
>> On 02/15/2010 04:27 PM, Neil Brown wrote:
>>
>> There are three options:
>>
>> a) either don't boot from it (separate /boot);
>> b) use a bootloader which installs in the MBR and
>> hopefully-unpartitioned disk areas (e.g. Grub);
>> c) use a nonstandard custom MBR.
>>
>> Neither (b) or (c), of course, allow for chainloading from another OS
>> install and thus are bad for interoperability.
> 
> I have had no problems with XFS partitions and lilo as the bootloader. 
> I've been doing this for a couple of years now without realizing that 
> there is supposed to be a problem.

There isn't, if you use partitions. It could (would) go wrong if you 
tried to put an XFS filesystem, or md RAID with a v1.1 superblock, on a 
whole disc without a partition table *and* you tried to put a bootloader 
on. I can't say it's ever occurred to me to do that, because I always 
assumed that whatever I put in a partition used all of it, and I 
couldn't expect to double-book the beginning of it and have it work.

Cheers,

John.

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 02/15/2010 07:18 PM, david@lang.hm wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
>> On 02/15/2010 04:27 PM, Neil Brown wrote:
>>
>> There are three options:
>>
>> a) either don't boot from it (separate /boot);
>> b) use a bootloader which installs in the MBR and
>> hopefully-unpartitioned disk areas (e.g. Grub);
>> c) use a nonstandard custom MBR.
>>
>> Neither (b) or (c), of course, allow for chainloading from another OS
>> install and thus are bad for interoperability.
>
> I have had no problems with XFS partitions and lilo as the bootloader.
> I've been doing this for a couple of years now without realizing that
> there is supposed to be a problem.
>

LILO also can be stuffed in the MBR (and then uses block-pointers from 
there).  There is one more option that I didn't mention, which is to put 
the bootloader of a separate partition, OS/2 style.  Again, breaks the 
standard chainloading model.

	-hpa

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Rudy Zijlstra]

H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 02/15/2010 07:18 PM, david@lang.hm wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>
>>> On 02/15/2010 04:27 PM, Neil Brown wrote:
>>>
>>> There are three options:
>>>
>>> a) either don't boot from it (separate /boot);
>>> b) use a bootloader which installs in the MBR and
>>> hopefully-unpartitioned disk areas (e.g. Grub);
>>> c) use a nonstandard custom MBR.
>>>
>>> Neither (b) or (c), of course, allow for chainloading from another OS
>>> install and thus are bad for interoperability.
>>
>> I have had no problems with XFS partitions and lilo as the bootloader.
>> I've been doing this for a couple of years now without realizing that
>> there is supposed to be a problem.
>>
>
> LILO also can be stuffed in the MBR (and then uses block-pointers from 
> there).  There is one more option that I didn't mention, which is to 
> put the bootloader of a separate partition, OS/2 style.  Again, breaks 
> the standard chainloading model.
There is another configuration that fails. Use partitioned md. I do not 
think it matters whether over whole device or with a partition table. 
Neither grub nor lilo will boot off from it. I've tested that exensively 
with a partition on the disks.  I am using PXE boot to boot 2 servers 
with that configuration. That adds a dependency on the pxe boot server, 
but considering the function of those servers they are moot if that pxe 
server is dead anyways....

Cheers,


Rudy

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Giovanni Tessore]

Neil Brown wrote:
> When mdadm defaults to 1.0 for a RAID1 it prints a warning to the effect that
> the array might not be suitable to store '/boot', and requests confirmation.
>
> So I assume that the people who are having this problem either do not read,
> or are using some partitioning tool that runs mdadm under the hood using
> "--run" to avoid the need for confirmation.  It would be nice to confirm if
> that was the case, and find out what tool is being used.
>   

I created it manually with
mdadm --create /dev/md0 --metadata=1.0 --level=1 --raid-devices=3 
/dev/sd[abc]1
but got no warning or confirmation request (mdadm - v2.6.7.1 - 15th 
October 2008), I guess due to old version.

Regards

-- 
Cordiali saluti.
Yours faithfully.

Giovanni Tessore

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Justin Piszcz]

On Tue, 16 Feb 2010, Neil Brown wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 18:00:23 -0500 (EST)
> Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@lucidpixels.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I may be converting a host to ext4 and was curious, is 0.90 still the only
>> superblock version for mdadm/raid-1 that you can boot from without having
>> to create an initrd/etc?
>>
>> Are there any benefits to using a superblock > 0.90 for a raid-1 boot
>> volume < 2TB?
>
> The only noticeable differences that I can think of are:
> 1/ If you reboot during recovery of a spare, then 0.90 will restart the
>    recovery at the start, while 1.x will restart from where it was up to.
> 2/ The /sys/class/block/mdXX/md/dev-YYY/errors counter is reset on each
>    re-assembly with 0.90, but is preserved across stop/start with 1.x
> 3/ If your partition starts on a multiple of 64K from the start of the
>    device and is the last partition and contains 0.90 metadata, then
>    mdadm can get confused by it.
> 4/ If you move the devices to a host with a different arch and different
>    byte-ordering, then extra effort will be needed to see the array for
>    0.90, but not for 1.x
>
> I suspect none of these is a big issue.
>
> It is likely that future extensions will only be supported on 1.x metadata.
> For example I hope to add support for storing a bad-block list, so that a
> read error during recovery will only be fatal for that block, not the whole
> recovery process.  This is unlikely ever to be supported on 0.90.  However
> it may not be possible to hot-enable it on 1.x either, depending on how much
> space has been reserved for extra metadata, so there is no guarantee that
> using 1.x now makes you future-proof.
>
> And yes, 0.90 is still the only superblock version that supports in-kernel
> autodetect, and I have no intention of adding in-kernel autodetect for any
> other version.
>
> NeilBrown
>

Hi Neil,

Thanks for the response, this is exactly what I was looking for and 
probably should be put in a FAQ.

Justin.

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Bill Davidsen]

Mr. James W. Laferriere wrote:
>  Hello Robin ,
>
>  On Fri, 12 Feb 2010, Robin Hill wrote:
> > On Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 05:52:41PM -0800, Michael Evans wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Justin Piszcz
> >> <jpiszcz@lucidpixels.com> wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I may be converting a host to ext4 and was curious, is 0.90
> >>> still the only superblock version for mdadm/raid-1 that you can
> >>> boot from without having to create an initrd/etc?
> >>>
> >>> Are there any benefits to using a superblock > 0.90 for a
> >>> raid-1 boot volume < 2TB?
> >>>
> >>> Justin.
> >>
> >> You need the superblock at the end of the partition:  If you read
> >> the manual that is clearly either version 0.90 OR 1.0 (NOT 1.1
> >> and also NOT 1.2; those use the same superblock layout but
> >> different locations).
> >>
> > You also need it to be auto-assembled by the kernel, which is only
> > version 0.90.
> >
> > As for benefits, there's a number of benefits of 1.x over 0.90 - I
> > don't think any of them are terribly important for a small boot
> > partition though.  There's also benefits to having an initrd
> > anyway.
> >
> > Cheers, Robin
>
>  One can use the 'append=""' functionality of lilo & I am user that
>  Grub2(and family) has some method of doing the same . ie: append="
>  md=1,/dev/sda1,/dev/sdb1,/dev/sdc1,/dev/sdd1
>  md=2,/dev/sda2,/dev/sdb2,/dev/sdc2,/dev/sdd2 md=3,/dev/sda3,/dev/sdb3
>  md=4,/dev/sda4,/dev/sdb4 vt.default_utf8=0 sysrq_always_enabled=1"
>
You *really* don't want to do that, you want to let mdadm find the 
arrays and use UUID to associate array with mount point. Any minor issue 
with the hardware will cause this whole structure to fail.

>  Not sure if this would be usable with a 1.1+ version of the MD
>  headers .

I'm not sure it's usable at all. Not that it doesn't work in a perfect 
world, we just don't live there. This method is fragile.

-- 
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  "We can't solve today's problems by using the same thinking we
   used in creating them." - Einstein

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Bill Davidsen]

H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 02/15/2010 04:27 PM, Neil Brown wrote:
>   
>> When mdadm defaults to 1.0 for a RAID1 it prints a warning to the effect that
>> the array might not be suitable to store '/boot', and requests confirmation.
>>
>> So I assume that the people who are having this problem either do not read,
>> or are using some partitioning tool that runs mdadm under the hood using
>> "--run" to avoid the need for confirmation.  It would be nice to confirm if
>> that was the case, and find out what tool is being used.
>>     
>
> My guess is that they are using the latter.  However, some of it is
> probably also a matter of not planning ahead, or not understanding the
> error message.  I'll forward one email privately (don't want to forward
> a private email to a list.)
>
>   
>> If an array is not being used for /boot (or /) then I still think that 1.1 is
>> the better choice as it removes the possibility for confusion over partition
>> tables.
>>
>> I guess I could try defaulting to 1.2 in a partition, and 1.1 on a
>> whole-device.  That might be a suitable compromise.
>>     
>
> In some ways, 1.1 is even more toxic on a whole-device, since that means
> that it is physically impossible to boot off of it -- the hardware will
> only ever read the first sector (MBR).
>
>   
That is either a problem or a solution, depending which bad behavior you 
are trying hardest to avoid.
>> How do people cope with XFS??
>>     
>
> There are three options:
>
> a) either don't boot from it (separate /boot);
>   
And certainly there are other reasons to do that...
> b) use a bootloader which installs in the MBR and
> hopefully-unpartitioned disk areas (e.g. Grub);
> c) use a nonstandard custom MBR.
>
> Neither (b) or (c), of course, allow for chainloading from another OS
> install and thus are bad for interoperability.
>   

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here, I use grub in MBR and 
then add chain loader stanzas to grub.conf for many things, usually an 
alternate Linux release, or to have 32/64 of the same release handy for 
testing, and always memtest from the boot menu. Even Win98SP2 on one 
machine, since that works very poorly under KVM. (ask Avi if you care 
why, something about what it does in real mode). In any case, I don't 
see the chain loader issue, unless you mean to reboot out of some other 
OS into Linux.

-- 
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  "We can't solve today's problems by using the same thinking we
   used in creating them." - Einstein

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Bill Davidsen]

Neil Brown wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 18:00:23 -0500 (EST)
> Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@lucidpixels.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> Hi,
>>
>> I may be converting a host to ext4 and was curious, is 0.90 still the only 
>> superblock version for mdadm/raid-1 that you can boot from without having 
>> to create an initrd/etc?
>>
>> Are there any benefits to using a superblock > 0.90 for a raid-1 boot 
>> volume < 2TB?
>>     
>
> The only noticeable differences that I can think of are:
>  1/ If you reboot during recovery of a spare, then 0.90 will restart the
>     recovery at the start, while 1.x will restart from where it was up to.
>  2/ The /sys/class/block/mdXX/md/dev-YYY/errors counter is reset on each
>     re-assembly with 0.90, but is preserved across stop/start with 1.x
>  3/ If your partition starts on a multiple of 64K from the start of the
>     device and is the last partition and contains 0.90 metadata, then
>     mdadm can get confused by it.
>   

Given that 4k sector drives make that a lot more likely that it used to 
be, I suspect some effort will be needed to address this sooner or later.

>  4/ If you move the devices to a host with a different arch and different
>     byte-ordering, then extra effort will be needed to see the array for
>     0.90, but not for 1.x
>
> I suspect none of these is a big issue.
>
> It is likely that future extensions will only be supported on 1.x metadata.
> For example I hope to add support for storing a bad-block list, so that a
> read error during recovery will only be fatal for that block, not the whole
> recovery process.  This is unlikely ever to be supported on 0.90.  However
> it may not be possible to hot-enable it on 1.x either, depending on how much
> space has been reserved for extra metadata, so there is no guarantee that
> using 1.x now makes you future-proof.
>
> And yes, 0.90 is still the only superblock version that supports in-kernel
> autodetect, and I have no intention of adding in-kernel autodetect for any
> other version.
>   


-- 
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  "We can't solve today's problems by using the same thinking we
   used in creating them." - Einstein

mdadm FAQ (was: Linux mdadm superblock question.)

[martin f krafft]

also sprach Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@lucidpixels.com> [2010.02.17.0214 +1300]:
> Thanks for the response, this is exactly what I was looking for
> and probably should be put in a FAQ.

I'd be more than happy to push my FAQ[0], possibly fused with my
"recipes", upstream and would welcome anyone who wanted to help out.

0. http://git.debian.org/?p=pkg-mdadm/mdadm.git;a=blob;f=debian/FAQ;hb=HEAD
1. http://git.debian.org/?p=pkg-mdadm/mdadm.git;a=blob;f=debian/README.recipes;hb=HEAD

-- 
 .''`.   martin f. krafft <madduck@d.o>      Related projects:
: :'  :  proud Debian developer               http://debiansystem.info
`. `'`   http://people.debian.org/~madduck    http://vcs-pkg.org
  `-  Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems
 
"literature always anticipates life.
 it does not copy it, but moulds it to its purpose.
 the nineteenth century, as we know it,
 is largely an invention of balzac."
                                                        -- oscar wilde

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 02/16/2010 09:05 AM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> 
> I'm not really sure what you're getting at here, I use grub in MBR and 
> then add chain loader stanzas to grub.conf for many things, usually an 
> alternate Linux release, or to have 32/64 of the same release handy for 
> testing, and always memtest from the boot menu. Even Win98SP2 on one 
> machine, since that works very poorly under KVM. (ask Avi if you care 
> why, something about what it does in real mode). In any case, I don't 
> see the chain loader issue, unless you mean to reboot out of some other 
> OS into Linux.
> 

That's one of many uses, yes

Presumably the reason you don't have problems is because the partitions
you chainload aren't RAID partitions with 1.1 superblocks, or you're
specifying an explicit offset for your chainloads (Grub syntax allows that.)

Either which way, it's a good example of the usage model.  Chainloading
is important for a lot of people.

	-hpa

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Neil Brown]

On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:12:51 +0100
Giovanni Tessore <giotex@texsoft.it> wrote:

> Neil Brown wrote:
> > When mdadm defaults to 1.0 for a RAID1 it prints a warning to the effect that
> > the array might not be suitable to store '/boot', and requests confirmation.
> >
> > So I assume that the people who are having this problem either do not read,
> > or are using some partitioning tool that runs mdadm under the hood using
> > "--run" to avoid the need for confirmation.  It would be nice to confirm if
> > that was the case, and find out what tool is being used.
> >   
> 
> I created it manually with
> mdadm --create /dev/md0 --metadata=1.0 --level=1 --raid-devices=3 
> /dev/sd[abc]1
> but got no warning or confirmation request (mdadm - v2.6.7.1 - 15th 
> October 2008), I guess due to old version.
> 

No - due to your actions not matching my description.

I said "when mdadm defaults to 1.0", though I should have said 
"...defaults to 1.1".  Sorry about that.
In any case, you didn't let it default to anything, so you presumably know
what you are doing.
And no v2.6.7.1 will never default to 1.1 so it will never give the message.
But v3.1.1 will default to 1.1 and when it does, it will print the message.

NeilBrown


> Regards
> 

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Neil Brown]

On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 08:14:21 -0500 (EST)
Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@lucidpixels.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010, Neil Brown wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 18:00:23 -0500 (EST)
> > Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@lucidpixels.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I may be converting a host to ext4 and was curious, is 0.90 still the only
> >> superblock version for mdadm/raid-1 that you can boot from without having
> >> to create an initrd/etc?
> >>
> >> Are there any benefits to using a superblock > 0.90 for a raid-1 boot
> >> volume < 2TB?
> >
> > The only noticeable differences that I can think of are:
> > 1/ If you reboot during recovery of a spare, then 0.90 will restart the
> >    recovery at the start, while 1.x will restart from where it was up to.
> > 2/ The /sys/class/block/mdXX/md/dev-YYY/errors counter is reset on each
> >    re-assembly with 0.90, but is preserved across stop/start with 1.x
> > 3/ If your partition starts on a multiple of 64K from the start of the
> >    device and is the last partition and contains 0.90 metadata, then
> >    mdadm can get confused by it.
> > 4/ If you move the devices to a host with a different arch and different
> >    byte-ordering, then extra effort will be needed to see the array for
> >    0.90, but not for 1.x
> >
> > I suspect none of these is a big issue.
> >
> > It is likely that future extensions will only be supported on 1.x metadata.
> > For example I hope to add support for storing a bad-block list, so that a
> > read error during recovery will only be fatal for that block, not the whole
> > recovery process.  This is unlikely ever to be supported on 0.90.  However
> > it may not be possible to hot-enable it on 1.x either, depending on how much
> > space has been reserved for extra metadata, so there is no guarantee that
> > using 1.x now makes you future-proof.
> >
> > And yes, 0.90 is still the only superblock version that supports in-kernel
> > autodetect, and I have no intention of adding in-kernel autodetect for any
> > other version.
> >
> > NeilBrown
> >
> 
> Hi Neil,
> 
> Thanks for the response, this is exactly what I was looking for and 
> probably should be put in a FAQ.
>
I believe the linux-raid wiki is open for anyone to update.  Feel free :-)

NeilBrown

Re: mdadm FAQ - see http://raid.wiki.kernel.org/

[David Greaves]

Hi all

I've not been active here for a long time - sorry :)

The linux raid wiki at OSDL (http://linux-raid.osdl.org/) was 'migrated' to a
drupal system during some Linux Foundation changes - clearly not suitable for
these kind of docs.

I spoke to maddog at kernel.org some months ago and we are now part of the
managed kernel wiki farm (which the osdl wiki pre-dated in case anyone wonders
why we didn't start out there).

I've asked osdl to redirect the current url to the kernel.org wiki but I think
this home should last us a while ;)

so:

hi martin..

martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@lucidpixels.com> [2010.02.17.0214 +1300]:
>> Thanks for the response, this is exactly what I was looking for
>> and probably should be put in a FAQ.
> 
> I'd be more than happy to push my FAQ[0], possibly fused with my
> "recipes", upstream and would welcome anyone who wanted to help out.
> 
> 0. http://git.debian.org/?p=pkg-mdadm/mdadm.git;a=blob;f=debian/FAQ;hb=HEAD
> 1. http://git.debian.org/?p=pkg-mdadm/mdadm.git;a=blob;f=debian/README.recipes;hb=HEAD

See:
  http://raid.wiki.kernel.org/

David

-- 
"Don't worry, you'll be fine; I saw it work in a cartoon once..."

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Michael Evans]

I actually much prefer building my own kernel for servers and
higher-end workstations.  I like having all the core drivers needed to
'get running' in there; even if the more delicate but static logic of
how to track down and assemble/unlock the drives is in the initramfs
image.

The only really annoying issue I've had with my custom initramfs
creator is getting it 'chained' by various distros auto-initramfs
update triggers so that it can grab the version of modules that match
a given kernel.  I have several ways in mind to work around that issue
at various steps, but no known userbase to support besides my self and
thus less motivation to work on that task.

Everything else of course works exactly the same as long as the
configuration hasn't changed on the host system.

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Michael Evans]

I actually much prefer building my own kernel for servers and
higher-end workstations.  I like having all the core drivers needed to
'get running' in there; even if the more delicate but static logic of
how to track down and assemble/unlock the drives is in the initramfs
image.

The only really annoying issue I've had with my custom initramfs
creator is getting it 'chained' by various distros auto-initramfs
update triggers so that it can grab the version of modules that match
a given kernel.  I have several ways in mind to work around that issue
at various steps, but no known userbase to support besides my self and
thus less motivation to work on that task.

Everything else of course works exactly the same as long as the
configuration hasn't changed on the host system.

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Nick Bowler]

On 04:33 Thu 18 Feb     , Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Nick Bowler <nbowler@elliptictech.com> writes:
> 
> > On 09:41 Wed 17 Feb     , david@lang.hm wrote:
> >> however for people who run systems that are known ahead of time and
> >> static (and who build their own kernels instead of just relying on the
> >> distro default kernel), all of this is unnessesary complication, which
> >> leaves more room for problems to creep in.
> >
> > Such people can easily construct an initramfs containing busybox and
> > mdadm with a shell script hardcoded to mount their root fs and run
> > switch_root.  It's a ~10 minute jobbie that only needs to be done once.
> 
> Except when mdadm, cryptsetup, lvm change you need to update it.
> Esspecially when you set up a new system that might have newer
> metadata.

I meant "once per system".  One typically doesn't _need_ to update the
mdadm in the initramfs, as long as it's capable of assembling the root
array.

> Also at least Debian doesn't (yet) support a common initramfs for their
> kernel packaging. You either build a kernel without need for one or you
> have a per kernel initramfs that is automatically build and updated
> whenever anything in the initrmafs changes. Not often, but still too
> often, the initramfs then doesn't work.

The scenario was when users configure and build their own kernel.  These
users are presumably capable of using grub's "initrd" command or the
CONFIG_INITRAMFS_SOURCE kernel option.

-- 
Nick Bowler, Elliptic Technologies (http://www.elliptictech.com/)

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Ian Dall]

On Tue, 2010-02-16 at 23:18 +0100, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> On Dienstag 16 Februar 2010, Nick Bowler wrote:
> > On 22:06 Tue 16 Feb     , Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> > > On Dienstag 16 Februar 2010, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> > > > Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> > > > > On Sonntag 14 Februar 2010, you wrote:
> > > > >> In other words, 'auto-detection' for 1.x format devices is using an
> > > > >> initrd/initramfs.
> > > > > 
> > > > > which makes 1.x format useless for everybody who does not want to
> > > > > deal with initrd/initramfs.
> > > > 
> > > > You make this sound like some major big deal. are you running your own
> > > > distribution? In most cases mkinitrd does the right thing when you
> > > > "make install" the kernel, and if you are doing something in the build
> > > > so complex that it needs options, you really should understand the
> > > > options and be sure you're doing what you want.
> > > > 
> > > > Generally this involves preloading a module or two, and if you need it
> > > > every time you probably should have built it in, anyway.
> > > > 
> > > > My opinion...
> > > 
> > > I am running my own kernels - and of course everything that is needed to
> > > boot and get the basic system up is built in. Why should I make the disk
> > > drivers modules?
> > > That does not make sense.
> > 
> > I agree that it makes little sense to make something a module when you
> > can't unload it anyway, but...
> > 
> > > And the reason is simple: even when the system is completely fucked up, I
> > > want a kernel that is able to boot until init=/bin/bb takes over.
> > 
> > I put a complete set of recovery tools into my initramfses so that when
> > the system is completely fucked up, I have a kernel that is able to boot
> > until rdinit=/bin/zsh (or /bin/bb, if you prefer) takes over.
> > 
> > This has the added advantage of working when the root filesystem cannot
> > be mounted at all: a scenario which does not seem too far-fetched when
> > the filesystem is located on a raid array.
> 
> and what do you do if you have to boot from a cd/usb stick and need to access 
> the raid?
> 
> Simple with auto assembling. Not so much without.

I'm not sure what the problem is. I've had to do this (because the disk
with grub on the MBR was the one that failed - now I put grub on them
all).

I booted of the fedora install disk in rescue mode. Told it not to try
and mount any system disks, got into a shell and ran mdadm -As 

I'm not sure what else a kernel auto-assemble would be expected to do
that mdadm -As wouldn't...


-- 
Ian Dall <ian@beware.dropbear.id.au>

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Luca Berra]

On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 04:33:34AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>Nick Bowler <nbowler@elliptictech.com> writes:
>Also at least Debian doesn't (yet) support a common initramfs for their
>kernel packaging. You either build a kernel without need for one or you
>have a per kernel initramfs that is automatically build and updated
>whenever anything in the initrmafs changes. Not often, but still too
>often, the initramfs then doesn't work.
>
>Does any other distribution allow building kernel image rpms that will
>use a common initramfs for all kernels?

you can do something like this with dracut
actually you need two initrds, one kernel independant that contains
scripts and binaries
the other one, kernel dependant that contains modules (you can skip it
if you don't need modules to mount root)
then use grub commandline to load both

L.

-- 
Luca Berra -- bluca@comedia.it
         Communication Media & Services S.r.l.
  /"\
  \ /     ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN
   X        AGAINST HTML MAIL
  / \

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Goswin von Brederlow]

Gabor Gombas <gombasg@digikabel.hu> writes:

> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 02:26:46PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
>
>> That's simply not true, at least not for Debian. If you actually use the 
>> distro tools [1] the only assumptions are made at kernel *installation* 
>> time, not at kernel build time.
>
> And that's why network-booted diskless clients and virtual guests have
> all sort of useless modules loaded; the HW where the kernel package was
> installed in this case is very different from the HW where the kernel
> will run. If only there were a switch to prohibit ever looking at the
> current machine's configuration when generating the initramfs...

From my experience you must boot up your client/guest and install the
kernel in there. Then copy the kernel and initrmafs over to the boot
server for use.

Initramfs was never designed to generate an image for another system, or
worse, for a pool of different systems. You can probably make it work on
a case by case basis but that wasn't thought of during the design phase.

Interesting idea though.

>> I've been using initramfs-tools generated initrds for years without 
>> problems, and that includes "root on LVM on LUKS encrypted partition" 
>> and "root on LVM on RAID" setups.
>
> I've tried a couple of times to use a Debian-built initramfs with a
> custom built kernel. The kernel worked fine without an initramfs (it had
> everything built in), but it did not boot with the initramfs.
>
> Gabor

'make-kpkg ... --initrd kernel-image' should build you your custom
kernel with all the magic required to generate a working initramfs.
If not then please do file bugs.

MfG
        Goswin

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Goswin von Brederlow]

Gabor Gombas <gombasg@digikabel.hu> writes:

> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 02:26:46PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
>
>> That's simply not true, at least not for Debian. If you actually use the 
>> distro tools [1] the only assumptions are made at kernel *installation* 
>> time, not at kernel build time.
>
> And that's why network-booted diskless clients and virtual guests have
> all sort of useless modules loaded; the HW where the kernel package was
> installed in this case is very different from the HW where the kernel
> will run. If only there were a switch to prohibit ever looking at the
> current machine's configuration when generating the initramfs...

>From my experience you must boot up your client/guest and install the
kernel in there. Then copy the kernel and initrmafs over to the boot
server for use.

Initramfs was never designed to generate an image for another system, or
worse, for a pool of different systems. You can probably make it work on
a case by case basis but that wasn't thought of during the design phase.

Interesting idea though.

>> I've been using initramfs-tools generated initrds for years without 
>> problems, and that includes "root on LVM on LUKS encrypted partition" 
>> and "root on LVM on RAID" setups.
>
> I've tried a couple of times to use a Debian-built initramfs with a
> custom built kernel. The kernel worked fine without an initramfs (it had
> everything built in), but it did not boot with the initramfs.
>
> Gabor

'make-kpkg ... --initrd kernel-image' should build you your custom
kernel with all the magic required to generate a working initramfs.
If not then please do file bugs.

MfG
        Goswin

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Goswin von Brederlow]

Nick Bowler <nbowler@elliptictech.com> writes:

> On 09:41 Wed 17 Feb     , david@lang.hm wrote:
>> for a distro that is trying to make one kernel image run on every
>> possible type of hardware features like initramfs (and udev, modeules,
>> etc) are wonderful.
>> 
>> however for people who run systems that are known ahead of time and
>> static (and who build their own kernels instead of just relying on the
>> distro default kernel), all of this is unnessesary complication, which
>> leaves more room for problems to creep in.
>
> Such people can easily construct an initramfs containing busybox and
> mdadm with a shell script hardcoded to mount their root fs and run
> switch_root.  It's a ~10 minute jobbie that only needs to be done once.

Except when mdadm, cryptsetup, lvm change you need to update it.
Esspecially when you set up a new system that might have newer
metadata.

Also at least Debian doesn't (yet) support a common initramfs for their
kernel packaging. You either build a kernel without need for one or you
have a per kernel initramfs that is automatically build and updated
whenever anything in the initrmafs changes. Not often, but still too
often, the initramfs then doesn't work.

Does any other distribution allow building kernel image rpms that will
use a common initramfs for all kernels?

MfG
        Goswin

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Neil Brown]

On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 03:38:46 +0100
Volker Armin Hemmann <volkerarmin@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On Mittwoch 17 Februar 2010, Neil Brown wrote:
> 
> > I will not be removing 0.90 or auto-assemble from the kernel in the
> > foreseeable future.
> > None the less, I recommend weaning yourself from your dependence on it.
> > initramfs is the future, embrace it.
> > 
> > NeilBrown
> 
> a future that is worse than the present. For what reason?

Reason: some things are easier to implement and maintain in userspace.
Implementing them in the kernel would likely produce a worse products.

Worse than the present:  only if you refuse to embrace it and there-by
contribute to fixing/improving it.

NeilBrown

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 02/17/2010 10:46 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> 
> well at the moment it takes less than two seconds until init takes over.
> 
> Adding .5 seconds is a lot. And loading the initrd and changing root isn't 
> free either, true?
> 
> I remember well all the noise in the past about making linux booting faster. 
> So why slow it down with an initrd - especially if you can do without?
> 

Note that an extremely lightweight initramfs can quite possibly be
faster than doing it in the kernel, just because userspace is so much
less constrained.  I was hoping klibc would catch on for this stuff, but
it hasn't as much as I'd like.

	-hpa

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[david]

On Wed, 17 Feb 2010, Nick Bowler wrote:

> On 13:17 Wed 17 Feb     , david@lang.hm wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010, Nick Bowler wrote:
>>
>>> On 10:41 Wed 17 Feb     , david@lang.hm wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010, Nick Bowler wrote:
>>>>> It takes about half a second for mdadm to assemble my root array, is
>>>>> that what you're referring to?
>>>>>
>>>>> I assume that kernel auto-assembly is no faster, although I've never
>>>>> used it.  Regardless, half a second isn't very long to wait.
>>>>
>>>> If you are aiming for a 5-second boot time it's 10% of your total boot
>>>> time. That's a lot for a feature that's not needed.
>>>
>>> Only if the kernel auto-assembly takes zero time, which it obviously
>>> does not.
>>
>> the assembly time would probably be the same, but the initramfs being
>> proposed did not include that time either.
>
> This was the *only* time that was included.  Quoting myself:
>
>> It takes about half a second for mdadm to assemble my root array

sorry, I misunderstood, I thought you were referring to the time added by 
using the initramfs itself.

David Lang

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Nick Bowler]

On 13:17 Wed 17 Feb     , david@lang.hm wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010, Nick Bowler wrote:
> 
> > On 10:41 Wed 17 Feb     , david@lang.hm wrote:
> >> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010, Nick Bowler wrote:
> >>> It takes about half a second for mdadm to assemble my root array, is
> >>> that what you're referring to?
> >>>
> >>> I assume that kernel auto-assembly is no faster, although I've never
> >>> used it.  Regardless, half a second isn't very long to wait.
> >>
> >> If you are aiming for a 5-second boot time it's 10% of your total boot
> >> time. That's a lot for a feature that's not needed.
> >
> > Only if the kernel auto-assembly takes zero time, which it obviously
> > does not.
> 
> the assembly time would probably be the same, but the initramfs being 
> proposed did not include that time either.

This was the *only* time that was included.  Quoting myself:

> It takes about half a second for mdadm to assemble my root array

I didn't make any claim about any other timings, since I have not made
any measurements (I am not adding instrumentation code to my initramfs
and rebooting the box just to do this, and my watch is not precise
enough to measure the time spent in initramfs).

After the kernel has loaded, but before init on my root fs is run, there
are only three things that cause noticeable delays:

 * probing all the disks.
 * assembling the root array.
 * mounting the root filesystem.

-- 
Nick Bowler, Elliptic Technologies (http://www.elliptictech.com/)

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Frans Pop]

On Wednesday 17 February 2010, Gabor Gombas wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 02:26:46PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> > That's simply not true, at least not for Debian. If you actually use
> > the distro tools [1] the only assumptions are made at kernel
> > *installation* time, not at kernel build time.
>
> And that's why network-booted diskless clients and virtual guests have
> all sort of useless modules loaded; the HW where the kernel package was
> installed in this case is very different from the HW where the kernel
> will run.

Interesting use case. But also a use case for which initramfs-tools 
probably very simply was never intended.

I agree that in this case you probably want to either
- have a very generic initrd that supports anything (Debian default) [1]
or
- provide a list of modules to include in the initrd based on knowing the
  hardware you want to support (e.g. using /etc/initramfs-tools/modules)
  and prevent including anything based on the host system.

I've never really done that so I don't know if initramfs-tools has any 
features to support that.

> If only there were a switch to prohibit ever looking at the 
> current machine's configuration when generating the initramfs...

Did you ever file a wishlist bug report for that?

> > I've been using initramfs-tools generated initrds for years without
> > problems, and that includes "root on LVM on LUKS encrypted partition"
> > and "root on LVM on RAID" setups.
>
> I've tried a couple of times to use a Debian-built initramfs with a
> custom built kernel. The kernel worked fine without an initramfs (it had
> everything built in), but it did not boot with the initramfs.

It's obviously hard to comment on something like this without more details 
(which would be off-topic for this list).


[1] Could still leave you with problems if the clients use something fancy 
for the root fs that uses info copied from /etc.

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[david]

On Wed, 17 Feb 2010, Nick Bowler wrote:

> On 10:41 Wed 17 Feb     , david@lang.hm wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010, Nick Bowler wrote:
>>> It takes about half a second for mdadm to assemble my root array, is
>>> that what you're referring to?
>>>
>>> I assume that kernel auto-assembly is no faster, although I've never
>>> used it.  Regardless, half a second isn't very long to wait.
>>
>> If you are aiming for a 5-second boot time it's 10% of your total boot
>> time. That's a lot for a feature that's not needed.
>
> Only if the kernel auto-assembly takes zero time, which it obviously
> does not.

the assembly time would probably be the same, but the initramfs being 
proposed did not include that time either.

David Lang

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Gabor Gombas]

On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 02:26:46PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:

> That's simply not true, at least not for Debian. If you actually use the 
> distro tools [1] the only assumptions are made at kernel *installation* 
> time, not at kernel build time.

And that's why network-booted diskless clients and virtual guests have
all sort of useless modules loaded; the HW where the kernel package was
installed in this case is very different from the HW where the kernel
will run. If only there were a switch to prohibit ever looking at the
current machine's configuration when generating the initramfs...

> I've been using initramfs-tools generated initrds for years without 
> problems, and that includes "root on LVM on LUKS encrypted partition" 
> and "root on LVM on RAID" setups.

I've tried a couple of times to use a Debian-built initramfs with a
custom built kernel. The kernel worked fine without an initramfs (it had
everything built in), but it did not boot with the initramfs.

Gabor

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Nick Bowler]

On 10:41 Wed 17 Feb     , david@lang.hm wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010, Nick Bowler wrote:
> > It takes about half a second for mdadm to assemble my root array, is
> > that what you're referring to?
> >
> > I assume that kernel auto-assembly is no faster, although I've never
> > used it.  Regardless, half a second isn't very long to wait.
> 
> If you are aiming for a 5-second boot time it's 10% of your total boot 
> time. That's a lot for a feature that's not needed.

Only if the kernel auto-assembly takes zero time, which it obviously
does not.

-- 
Nick Bowler, Elliptic Technologies (http://www.elliptictech.com/)

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Mittwoch 17 Februar 2010, Nick Bowler wrote:
> On 19:27 Wed 17 Feb     , Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> > On Mittwoch 17 Februar 2010, Nick Bowler wrote:
> > > On 09:41 Wed 17 Feb     , david@lang.hm wrote:
> > > > for a distro that is trying to make one kernel image run on every
> > > > possible type of hardware features like initramfs (and udev,
> > > > modeules, etc) are wonderful.
> > > > 
> > > > however for people who run systems that are known ahead of time and
> > > > static (and who build their own kernels instead of just relying on
> > > > the distro default kernel), all of this is unnessesary complication,
> > > > which leaves more room for problems to creep in.
> > > 
> > > Such people can easily construct an initramfs containing busybox and
> > > mdadm with a shell script hardcoded to mount their root fs and run
> > > switch_root.  It's a ~10 minute jobbie that only needs to be done once.
> > 
> > and even better when you don't have to do that one time job at all.
> 
> But people who are building their own kernels are already doing a
> (much harder, imo) one time job of configuring their kernels.
> 
> > btw, what about additional delay?
> 
> It takes about half a second for mdadm to assemble my root array, is
> that what you're referring to?
> 
> I assume that kernel auto-assembly is no faster, although I've never
> used it.  Regardless, half a second isn't very long to wait.

well at the moment it takes less than two seconds until init takes over.

Adding .5 seconds is a lot. And loading the initrd and changing root isn't 
free either, true?

I remember well all the noise in the past about making linux booting faster. 
So why slow it down with an initrd - especially if you can do without?

Glück Auf,
Volker

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[david]

On Wed, 17 Feb 2010, Nick Bowler wrote:

> On 19:27 Wed 17 Feb     , Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>> On Mittwoch 17 Februar 2010, Nick Bowler wrote:
>>> On 09:41 Wed 17 Feb     , david@lang.hm wrote:
>>>> for a distro that is trying to make one kernel image run on every
>>>> possible type of hardware features like initramfs (and udev, modeules,
>>>> etc) are wonderful.
>>>>
>>>> however for people who run systems that are known ahead of time and
>>>> static (and who build their own kernels instead of just relying on the
>>>> distro default kernel), all of this is unnessesary complication, which
>>>> leaves more room for problems to creep in.
>>>
>>> Such people can easily construct an initramfs containing busybox and
>>> mdadm with a shell script hardcoded to mount their root fs and run
>>> switch_root.  It's a ~10 minute jobbie that only needs to be done once.
>>
>> and even better when you don't have to do that one time job at all.
>
> But people who are building their own kernels are already doing a
> (much harder, imo) one time job of configuring their kernels.
>
>> btw, what about additional delay?
>
> It takes about half a second for mdadm to assemble my root array, is
> that what you're referring to?
>
> I assume that kernel auto-assembly is no faster, although I've never
> used it.  Regardless, half a second isn't very long to wait.

If you are aiming for a 5-second boot time it's 10% of your total boot 
time. That's a lot for a feature that's not needed.

David Lang

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Nick Bowler]

On 19:27 Wed 17 Feb     , Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> On Mittwoch 17 Februar 2010, Nick Bowler wrote:
> > On 09:41 Wed 17 Feb     , david@lang.hm wrote:
> > > for a distro that is trying to make one kernel image run on every
> > > possible type of hardware features like initramfs (and udev, modeules,
> > > etc) are wonderful.
> > > 
> > > however for people who run systems that are known ahead of time and
> > > static (and who build their own kernels instead of just relying on the
> > > distro default kernel), all of this is unnessesary complication, which
> > > leaves more room for problems to creep in.
> > 
> > Such people can easily construct an initramfs containing busybox and
> > mdadm with a shell script hardcoded to mount their root fs and run
> > switch_root.  It's a ~10 minute jobbie that only needs to be done once.
> 
> and even better when you don't have to do that one time job at all.

But people who are building their own kernels are already doing a
(much harder, imo) one time job of configuring their kernels.

> btw, what about additional delay? 

It takes about half a second for mdadm to assemble my root array, is
that what you're referring to?

I assume that kernel auto-assembly is no faster, although I've never
used it.  Regardless, half a second isn't very long to wait.

-- 
Nick Bowler, Elliptic Technologies (http://www.elliptictech.com/)

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Mittwoch 17 Februar 2010, Nick Bowler wrote:
> On 09:41 Wed 17 Feb     , david@lang.hm wrote:
> > for a distro that is trying to make one kernel image run on every
> > possible type of hardware features like initramfs (and udev, modeules,
> > etc) are wonderful.
> > 
> > however for people who run systems that are known ahead of time and
> > static (and who build their own kernels instead of just relying on the
> > distro default kernel), all of this is unnessesary complication, which
> > leaves more room for problems to creep in.
> 
> Such people can easily construct an initramfs containing busybox and
> mdadm with a shell script hardcoded to mount their root fs and run
> switch_root.  It's a ~10 minute jobbie that only needs to be done once.


and even better when you don't have to do that one time job at all.

btw, what about additional delay? 


Glück Auf,
Volker

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Nick Bowler]

On 09:41 Wed 17 Feb     , david@lang.hm wrote:
> for a distro that is trying to make one kernel image run on every
> possible type of hardware features like initramfs (and udev, modeules,
> etc) are wonderful.
> 
> however for people who run systems that are known ahead of time and
> static (and who build their own kernels instead of just relying on the
> distro default kernel), all of this is unnessesary complication, which
> leaves more room for problems to creep in.

Such people can easily construct an initramfs containing busybox and
mdadm with a shell script hardcoded to mount their root fs and run
switch_root.  It's a ~10 minute jobbie that only needs to be done once.

-- 
Nick Bowler, Elliptic Technologies (http://www.elliptictech.com/)

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[david]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 1196 bytes --]

On Wed, 17 Feb 2010, Kyle Moffett wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 04:38, Rudy Zijlstra
> <rudy@grumpydevil.homelinux.org> wrote:
>> Kyle Moffett wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 21:01, Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de> wrote:
>>>> I will not be removing 0.90 or auto-assemble from the kernel in the
>>>> foreseeable future.
>>>> None the less, I recommend weaning yourself from your dependence on it.
>>>> initramfs is the future, embrace it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What are people's reasons for pushback against initramfs?  I've heard
>>> lots of claims that "it's not trustworthy" and "it breaks", but in 7
>>> years of running bootable software RAID boxes on weird architectures
>>> (even running Debian unstable) I have only once or twice had initramfs
>>> problems.

Kyle,
   for a distro that is trying to make one kernel image run on every 
possible type of hardware features like initramfs (and udev, modeules, 
etc) are wonderful.

however for people who run systems that are known ahead of time and 
static (and who build their own kernels instead of just relying on the 
distro default kernel), all of this is unnessesary complication, which 
leaves more room for problems to creep in.

David Lang

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Kyle Moffett]

On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 04:38, Rudy Zijlstra
<rudy@grumpydevil.homelinux.org> wrote:
> Kyle Moffett wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 21:01, Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de> wrote:
>>> I will not be removing 0.90 or auto-assemble from the kernel in the
>>> foreseeable future.
>>> None the less, I recommend weaning yourself from your dependence on it.
>>> initramfs is the future, embrace it.
>>>
>>
>> What are people's reasons for pushback against initramfs?  I've heard
>> lots of claims that "it's not trustworthy" and "it breaks", but in 7
>> years of running bootable software RAID boxes on weird architectures
>> (even running Debian unstable) I have only once or twice had initramfs
>> problems.
>>
>> As a software capability, initramfs makes it possible to use
>> *anything* as a root filesystem, no matter what is necessary to set it
>> up.  For example, I have seen somebody use DRBD (essentially network
>> RAID-1) as a root filesystem with a few custom hook scripts added to
>> the initramfs-tools configs.  Other examples include using Sun ZFS as
>> a root fs via an initramfs FUSE daemon, a feat which even Solaris
>> could not accomplish at the time.  Encrypted root filesystems also
>> require an initramfs to prompt for encryption keys and decrypt the
>> block device.  Multipath block devices are another example.
>
> We are looking at 2 different use-cases i think.
>
> for the power-user system manager, who manages all his servers and has
> knowledgeable backup, initrd may indeed work as above.
>
> I have to keep in mind, that when there is a problem while i am travelling
> (and that happens), there is no sys-admin present. Also, i am supporting
> systems remote where no-one has the knowledge to debug using a initrd. In
> such cases, initrd is an additional step. And each additional step is an
> additional source of mistakes.

Actually, a properly built initramfs gives you far more reliable
behavior even without a local sysadmin.  For example, most
graphical-boot tools are designed to be built into an initramfs; I
have seen some prototype initramfs images which provide end-user
accessible GUI boot menus and other tools which function reliably even
when your root filesystem is inaccessible.

> 1/ distro tools assume that the kernel being build will run on that machine.
> For servers this is often not true. There are very valid security reasons to
> exclude compilation capability from many servers.

As Frans Pop states, this is entirely untrue for (at the very least)
Debian.  The "initramfs-tools" package present there works regardless
of where I obtain my kernel.  If I use the "make-kpkg" Debian tool
when building my kernel (regardless of where it is built), then the
resulting package will automatically generate an appropriate initramfs
image when installed.  If for some reason I install a kernel by hand I
can very trivially build the necessary initramfs with this command:

update-initramfs -c -k 2.6.32-mykernel01

In the event that you need to "customize" the initramfs for some
reason, you can simply do so.  When the "update-initramfs" tool is
next run, it will report that the user has customized that image and
avoid modifying it.  If you wish to return to the autogenerated
initramfs you can simply run this command:

update-initramfs -u -t -k 2.6.32-2-amd64

> 2/ For most small shops, there is need for RAID (disks are fallible, shop
> cannot do without server), the RAID should work without being visible. If
> there is a problem with the RAID that causes auto-assemble to break, it
> means i need to travel (>100KM) to trouble shoot. The simpler the setup, the
> more i like it. This is also why i almost always use HW raid for the system
> partitions. The ones i use have userland tools in Linux which warn on disk
> failure, ensure auto rebuild, etc...
> Still, for large storage needs it is SW RAID over SATA.
>
> 3/ for my home systems, if i need to remote-support to get things working
> again (i am often travelling for my work), the added layer of initrd is an
> added layer of possible mistakes.

You are actually just setting yourself up for problems.  RAID
autoassembly has bad corner cases when disks disappear between reboots
(which happens with failing disk head assemblies).  In that case it
will fail to find its root filesystem or wait forever for the last
disk to show up.  I have had even *worse* problems (including
corruption of unrelated logical volumes) with many hardware RAID
controllers, even those from big-name server vendors such as HP and
Dell.

To contrast, an initramfs is configurable to prompt the user,
automatically degrade the array after a small delay, or even play a
kazoo if desired :-D.  One of these days I may get around to building
myself a small GUI wrapper around mdadm on an initramfs which allows a
user to manually recover from RAID problems.

Cheers,
Kyle Moffett
--
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: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Kyle Moffett]

On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 04:38, Rudy Zijlstra
<rudy@grumpydevil.homelinux.org> wrote:
> Kyle Moffett wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 21:01, Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de> wrote:
>>> I will not be removing 0.90 or auto-assemble from the kernel in the
>>> foreseeable future.
>>> None the less, I recommend weaning yourself from your dependence on it.
>>> initramfs is the future, embrace it.
>>>
>>
>> What are people's reasons for pushback against initramfs?  I've heard
>> lots of claims that "it's not trustworthy" and "it breaks", but in 7
>> years of running bootable software RAID boxes on weird architectures
>> (even running Debian unstable) I have only once or twice had initramfs
>> problems.
>>
>> As a software capability, initramfs makes it possible to use
>> *anything* as a root filesystem, no matter what is necessary to set it
>> up.  For example, I have seen somebody use DRBD (essentially network
>> RAID-1) as a root filesystem with a few custom hook scripts added to
>> the initramfs-tools configs.  Other examples include using Sun ZFS as
>> a root fs via an initramfs FUSE daemon, a feat which even Solaris
>> could not accomplish at the time.  Encrypted root filesystems also
>> require an initramfs to prompt for encryption keys and decrypt the
>> block device.  Multipath block devices are another example.
>
> We are looking at 2 different use-cases i think.
>
> for the power-user system manager, who manages all his servers and has
> knowledgeable backup, initrd may indeed work as above.
>
> I have to keep in mind, that when there is a problem while i am travelling
> (and that happens), there is no sys-admin present. Also, i am supporting
> systems remote where no-one has the knowledge to debug using a initrd. In
> such cases, initrd is an additional step. And each additional step is an
> additional source of mistakes.

Actually, a properly built initramfs gives you far more reliable
behavior even without a local sysadmin.  For example, most
graphical-boot tools are designed to be built into an initramfs; I
have seen some prototype initramfs images which provide end-user
accessible GUI boot menus and other tools which function reliably even
when your root filesystem is inaccessible.

> 1/ distro tools assume that the kernel being build will run on that machine.
> For servers this is often not true. There are very valid security reasons to
> exclude compilation capability from many servers.

As Frans Pop states, this is entirely untrue for (at the very least)
Debian.  The "initramfs-tools" package present there works regardless
of where I obtain my kernel.  If I use the "make-kpkg" Debian tool
when building my kernel (regardless of where it is built), then the
resulting package will automatically generate an appropriate initramfs
image when installed.  If for some reason I install a kernel by hand I
can very trivially build the necessary initramfs with this command:

update-initramfs -c -k 2.6.32-mykernel01

In the event that you need to "customize" the initramfs for some
reason, you can simply do so.  When the "update-initramfs" tool is
next run, it will report that the user has customized that image and
avoid modifying it.  If you wish to return to the autogenerated
initramfs you can simply run this command:

update-initramfs -u -t -k 2.6.32-2-amd64

> 2/ For most small shops, there is need for RAID (disks are fallible, shop
> cannot do without server), the RAID should work without being visible. If
> there is a problem with the RAID that causes auto-assemble to break, it
> means i need to travel (>100KM) to trouble shoot. The simpler the setup, the
> more i like it. This is also why i almost always use HW raid for the system
> partitions. The ones i use have userland tools in Linux which warn on disk
> failure, ensure auto rebuild, etc...
> Still, for large storage needs it is SW RAID over SATA.
>
> 3/ for my home systems, if i need to remote-support to get things working
> again (i am often travelling for my work), the added layer of initrd is an
> added layer of possible mistakes.

You are actually just setting yourself up for problems.  RAID
autoassembly has bad corner cases when disks disappear between reboots
(which happens with failing disk head assemblies).  In that case it
will fail to find its root filesystem or wait forever for the last
disk to show up.  I have had even *worse* problems (including
corruption of unrelated logical volumes) with many hardware RAID
controllers, even those from big-name server vendors such as HP and
Dell.

To contrast, an initramfs is configurable to prompt the user,
automatically degrade the array after a small delay, or even play a
kazoo if desired :-D.  One of these days I may get around to building
myself a small GUI wrapper around mdadm on an initramfs which allows a
user to manually recover from RAID problems.

Cheers,
Kyle Moffett

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Nick Bowler]

On 23:18 Tue 16 Feb     , Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> On Dienstag 16 Februar 2010, Nick Bowler wrote:
> > I put a complete set of recovery tools into my initramfses so that when
> > the system is completely fucked up, I have a kernel that is able to boot
> > until rdinit=/bin/zsh (or /bin/bb, if you prefer) takes over.
> > 
> > This has the added advantage of working when the root filesystem cannot
> > be mounted at all: a scenario which does not seem too far-fetched when
> > the filesystem is located on a raid array.
> 
> and what do you do if you have to boot from a cd/usb stick and need to access 
> the raid?
> 
> Simple with auto assembling. Not so much without.

The same initramfs can be used on a CD or USB stick.  If you were
referring to using someone else's CD or USB stick, then obviously
mdadm will need to be available.

-- 
Nick Bowler, Elliptic Technologies (http://www.elliptictech.com/)

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Frans Pop]

Rudy Zijlstra wrote:
> 1/ distro tools assume that the kernel being build will run on that
> machine. For servers this is often not true. There are very valid
> security reasons to exclude compilation capability from many servers.

That's simply not true, at least not for Debian. If you actually use the 
distro tools [1] the only assumptions are made at kernel *installation* 
time, not at kernel build time.

I've been using initramfs-tools generated initrds for years without 
problems, and that includes "root on LVM on LUKS encrypted partition" 
and "root on LVM on RAID" setups.

Cheers,
FJP

[1] I.e. if you build and install the kernel as a .deb package using e.g. 
the deb-pkg target or kernel-package.

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Rudy Zijlstra]

Kyle Moffett wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 21:01, Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de> wrote:
>   
>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:03:43 -0900 (AKST) "Mr. James W. Laferriere" <babydr@baby-dragons.com> wrote:
>>     
>>>       I am unaware of any record from Neil or other maintainer(s) of the
>>> /md/ device tree saying that they will not remove the 0.90 table and the
>>> autoassembly functions there .  I'd very much like to hear a statement saying
>>> there will not be a removal of the autoassembly functions for 0.90 raid table
>>> from the kernel tree .
>>>       
>> I will not be removing 0.90 or auto-assemble from the kernel in the
>> foreseeable future.
>> None the less, I recommend weaning yourself from your dependence on it.
>> initramfs is the future, embrace it.
>>     
>
> What are people's reasons for pushback against initramfs?  I've heard
> lots of claims that "it's not trustworthy" and "it breaks", but in 7
> years of running bootable software RAID boxes on weird architectures
> (even running Debian unstable) I have only once or twice had initramfs
> problems.
>
> As a software capability, initramfs makes it possible to use
> *anything* as a root filesystem, no matter what is necessary to set it
> up.  For example, I have seen somebody use DRBD (essentially network
> RAID-1) as a root filesystem with a few custom hook scripts added to
> the initramfs-tools configs.  Other examples include using Sun ZFS as
> a root fs via an initramfs FUSE daemon, a feat which even Solaris
> could not accomplish at the time.  Encrypted root filesystems also
> require an initramfs to prompt for encryption keys and decrypt the
> block device.  Multipath block devices are another example.
>
> You should also take a look at your distro installers.  There is not a
> single one made in the last several years which does not use an
> initramfs to start networking or access the installation media.  In
> fact, of all the distro installers I have had the most consistent
> behavior regardless of system hardware from the ones which operate
> entirely out of their initramfs.
>
> From a reliability perspective, an initramfs is no more essential
> than, say, /sbin/init or /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.33.  Furthermore, all of
> the modern initramfs generation tools automatically keep backup copies
> exactly the same way that "make install" keeps backup copies of your
> kernel images.  The two times I've managed to hose my initramfs I was
> able to simply edit my grub config to use a file called something like
> "/boot/initramfs-2.6.33.bak" instead.
>
> In fact, I have had several times where an initramfs made my boot
> process *more* reliable.  On one of my LVM JBOD systems, I was able to
> pull a group of 3 SATA drives whose backplane had failed and drop them
> all in USB enclosures to get the system back up and running in a half
> an hour.  With just straight partitions on the volumes I would have
> been hunting around for 2 hours to figure out where all my partitions
> had gone only to have the USB drives spin up in a different order
> during the next reboot.
>
> If you're really concerned about boot-process reliability, go ahead
> and tell your initramfs tool to include a fully-featured busybox,
> coreutils, bash, strace, gdb, and a half-dozen other developer tools.
> You may wait an extra 20 seconds for your bootloader to load the damn
> thing during boot, but you'll be able to track down that annoying
> 10-second hang in your /sbin/init program during config-file parsing.
>
> I've built specialized embedded computers with stripped-down chipset
> initialization code, a tiny Linux kernel and a special-purpose
> initramfs burned into the flash.  By using the fastboot patches and
> disabling all the excess drivers, my kernel was fully operational
> within the first half-second.  It used the tools on the initramfs to
> poke around on the hard disk as a bootloader, then kexec() to load the
> operational kernel.
>
> Counting up all the problems I've had with system boot... I've had an
> order of magnitude more problems from somebody getting careless with
> "rm", "dpkg --purge", etc than with initramfs deficiencies.
>
>
>   
We are looking at 2 different use-cases i think.

for the power-user system manager, who manages all his servers and has 
knowledgeable backup, initrd may indeed work as above.

I have to keep in mind, that when there is a problem while i am 
travelling (and that happens), there is no sys-admin present. Also, i am 
supporting systems remote where no-one has the knowledge to debug using 
a initrd. In such cases, initrd is an additional step. And each 
additional step is an additional source of mistakes.

1/ distro tools assume that the kernel being build will run on that 
machine. For servers this is often not true. There are very valid 
security reasons to exclude compilation capability from many servers.
2/ For most small shops, there is need for RAID (disks are fallible, 
shop cannot do without server), the RAID should work without being 
visible. If there is a problem with the RAID that causes auto-assemble 
to break, it means i need to travel (>100KM) to trouble shoot. The 
simpler the setup, the more i like it. This is also why i almost always 
use HW raid for the system partitions. The ones i use have userland 
tools in Linux which warn on disk failure, ensure auto rebuild, etc...
Still, for large storage needs it is SW RAID over SATA.
3/ for my home systems, if i need to remote-support to get things 
working again (i am often travelling for my work), the added layer of 
initrd is an added layer of possible mistakes.



Cheers,


Rudy

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Kyle Moffett]

On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 21:01, Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:03:43 -0900 (AKST) "Mr. James W. Laferriere" <babydr@baby-dragons.com> wrote:
>>       I am unaware of any record from Neil or other maintainer(s) of the
>> /md/ device tree saying that they will not remove the 0.90 table and the
>> autoassembly functions there .  I'd very much like to hear a statement saying
>> there will not be a removal of the autoassembly functions for 0.90 raid table
>> from the kernel tree .
>
> I will not be removing 0.90 or auto-assemble from the kernel in the
> foreseeable future.
> None the less, I recommend weaning yourself from your dependence on it.
> initramfs is the future, embrace it.

What are people's reasons for pushback against initramfs?  I've heard
lots of claims that "it's not trustworthy" and "it breaks", but in 7
years of running bootable software RAID boxes on weird architectures
(even running Debian unstable) I have only once or twice had initramfs
problems.

As a software capability, initramfs makes it possible to use
*anything* as a root filesystem, no matter what is necessary to set it
up.  For example, I have seen somebody use DRBD (essentially network
RAID-1) as a root filesystem with a few custom hook scripts added to
the initramfs-tools configs.  Other examples include using Sun ZFS as
a root fs via an initramfs FUSE daemon, a feat which even Solaris
could not accomplish at the time.  Encrypted root filesystems also
require an initramfs to prompt for encryption keys and decrypt the
block device.  Multipath block devices are another example.

You should also take a look at your distro installers.  There is not a
single one made in the last several years which does not use an
initramfs to start networking or access the installation media.  In
fact, of all the distro installers I have had the most consistent
behavior regardless of system hardware from the ones which operate
entirely out of their initramfs.

From a reliability perspective, an initramfs is no more essential
than, say, /sbin/init or /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.33.  Furthermore, all of
the modern initramfs generation tools automatically keep backup copies
exactly the same way that "make install" keeps backup copies of your
kernel images.  The two times I've managed to hose my initramfs I was
able to simply edit my grub config to use a file called something like
"/boot/initramfs-2.6.33.bak" instead.

In fact, I have had several times where an initramfs made my boot
process *more* reliable.  On one of my LVM JBOD systems, I was able to
pull a group of 3 SATA drives whose backplane had failed and drop them
all in USB enclosures to get the system back up and running in a half
an hour.  With just straight partitions on the volumes I would have
been hunting around for 2 hours to figure out where all my partitions
had gone only to have the USB drives spin up in a different order
during the next reboot.

If you're really concerned about boot-process reliability, go ahead
and tell your initramfs tool to include a fully-featured busybox,
coreutils, bash, strace, gdb, and a half-dozen other developer tools.
You may wait an extra 20 seconds for your bootloader to load the damn
thing during boot, but you'll be able to track down that annoying
10-second hang in your /sbin/init program during config-file parsing.

I've built specialized embedded computers with stripped-down chipset
initialization code, a tiny Linux kernel and a special-purpose
initramfs burned into the flash.  By using the fastboot patches and
disabling all the excess drivers, my kernel was fully operational
within the first half-second.  It used the tools on the initramfs to
poke around on the hard disk as a bootloader, then kexec() to load the
operational kernel.

Counting up all the problems I've had with system boot... I've had an
order of magnitude more problems from somebody getting careless with
"rm", "dpkg --purge", etc than with initramfs deficiencies.

Cheers,
Kyle Moffett
--
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: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Kyle Moffett]

On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 21:01, Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:03:43 -0900 (AKST) "Mr. James W. Laferriere" <babydr@baby-dragons.com> wrote:
>>       I am unaware of any record from Neil or other maintainer(s) of the
>> /md/ device tree saying that they will not remove the 0.90 table and the
>> autoassembly functions there .  I'd very much like to hear a statement saying
>> there will not be a removal of the autoassembly functions for 0.90 raid table
>> from the kernel tree .
>
> I will not be removing 0.90 or auto-assemble from the kernel in the
> foreseeable future.
> None the less, I recommend weaning yourself from your dependence on it.
> initramfs is the future, embrace it.

What are people's reasons for pushback against initramfs?  I've heard
lots of claims that "it's not trustworthy" and "it breaks", but in 7
years of running bootable software RAID boxes on weird architectures
(even running Debian unstable) I have only once or twice had initramfs
problems.

As a software capability, initramfs makes it possible to use
*anything* as a root filesystem, no matter what is necessary to set it
up.  For example, I have seen somebody use DRBD (essentially network
RAID-1) as a root filesystem with a few custom hook scripts added to
the initramfs-tools configs.  Other examples include using Sun ZFS as
a root fs via an initramfs FUSE daemon, a feat which even Solaris
could not accomplish at the time.  Encrypted root filesystems also
require an initramfs to prompt for encryption keys and decrypt the
block device.  Multipath block devices are another example.

You should also take a look at your distro installers.  There is not a
single one made in the last several years which does not use an
initramfs to start networking or access the installation media.  In
fact, of all the distro installers I have had the most consistent
behavior regardless of system hardware from the ones which operate
entirely out of their initramfs.

>From a reliability perspective, an initramfs is no more essential
than, say, /sbin/init or /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.33.  Furthermore, all of
the modern initramfs generation tools automatically keep backup copies
exactly the same way that "make install" keeps backup copies of your
kernel images.  The two times I've managed to hose my initramfs I was
able to simply edit my grub config to use a file called something like
"/boot/initramfs-2.6.33.bak" instead.

In fact, I have had several times where an initramfs made my boot
process *more* reliable.  On one of my LVM JBOD systems, I was able to
pull a group of 3 SATA drives whose backplane had failed and drop them
all in USB enclosures to get the system back up and running in a half
an hour.  With just straight partitions on the volumes I would have
been hunting around for 2 hours to figure out where all my partitions
had gone only to have the USB drives spin up in a different order
during the next reboot.

If you're really concerned about boot-process reliability, go ahead
and tell your initramfs tool to include a fully-featured busybox,
coreutils, bash, strace, gdb, and a half-dozen other developer tools.
You may wait an extra 20 seconds for your bootloader to load the damn
thing during boot, but you'll be able to track down that annoying
10-second hang in your /sbin/init program during config-file parsing.

I've built specialized embedded computers with stripped-down chipset
initialization code, a tiny Linux kernel and a special-purpose
initramfs burned into the flash.  By using the fastboot patches and
disabling all the excess drivers, my kernel was fully operational
within the first half-second.  It used the tools on the initramfs to
poke around on the hard disk as a bootloader, then kexec() to load the
operational kernel.

Counting up all the problems I've had with system boot... I've had an
order of magnitude more problems from somebody getting careless with
"rm", "dpkg --purge", etc than with initramfs deficiencies.

Cheers,
Kyle Moffett

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Mittwoch 17 Februar 2010, Neil Brown wrote:

> I will not be removing 0.90 or auto-assemble from the kernel in the
> foreseeable future.
> None the less, I recommend weaning yourself from your dependence on it.
> initramfs is the future, embrace it.
> 
> NeilBrown

a future that is worse than the present. For what reason?

Glück Auf,
Volker
--
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: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Mittwoch 17 Februar 2010, Neil Brown wrote:

> I will not be removing 0.90 or auto-assemble from the kernel in the
> foreseeable future.
> None the less, I recommend weaning yourself from your dependence on it.
> initramfs is the future, embrace it.
> 
> NeilBrown

a future that is worse than the present. For what reason?

Glück Auf,
Volker

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Neil Brown]

On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:03:43 -0900 (AKST)
"Mr. James W. Laferriere" <babydr@baby-dragons.com> wrote:

>  	Hello Bill ,
> 
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> > Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> >> On Sonntag 14 Februar 2010, you wrote:
> >>> In other words, 'auto-detection' for 1.x format devices is using an
> >>> initrd/initramfs.
> >>
> >> which makes 1.x format useless for everybody who does not want to deal with 
> >> initrd/initramfs.
> >
> > You make this sound like some major big deal. are you running your own 
> > distribution? In most cases mkinitrd does the right thing when you "make 
> > install" the kernel, and if you are doing something in the build so complex 
> > that it needs options, you really should understand the options and be sure 
> > you're doing what you want.
> >
> > Generally this involves preloading a module or two, and if you need it every 
> > time you probably should have built it in, anyway.
> >
> > My opinion...
>  	My Opinion as well .  That is one of the many reasons why I have my '/' 
> autoassemble .  And do to this I am permanently stuck at 0.90 version of the 
> raid table .  No big shakes for that .  But at sometime in the past there was a 
> discussion to have the 0.90 raid table be removed ,  NOW THAT SCARES THE H?LL 
> OUT OF ME .  So far Neil has not done so .
> 
>  	I am unaware of any record from Neil or other maintainer(s) of the 
> /md/ device tree saying that they will not remove the 0.90 table and the 
> autoassembly functions there .  I'd very much like to hear a statement saying 
> there will not be a removal of the autoassembly functions for 0.90 raid table 
> from the kernel tree .

I will not be removing 0.90 or auto-assemble from the kernel in the
foreseeable future.
None the less, I recommend weaning yourself from your dependence on it.
initramfs is the future, embrace it.

NeilBrown

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Mr. James W. Laferriere]

 	Hello Bill ,

On Tue, 16 Feb 2010, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>> On Sonntag 14 Februar 2010, you wrote:
>>> In other words, 'auto-detection' for 1.x format devices is using an
>>> initrd/initramfs.
>>
>> which makes 1.x format useless for everybody who does not want to deal with 
>> initrd/initramfs.
>
> You make this sound like some major big deal. are you running your own 
> distribution? In most cases mkinitrd does the right thing when you "make 
> install" the kernel, and if you are doing something in the build so complex 
> that it needs options, you really should understand the options and be sure 
> you're doing what you want.
>
> Generally this involves preloading a module or two, and if you need it every 
> time you probably should have built it in, anyway.
>
> My opinion...
 	My Opinion as well .  That is one of the many reasons why I have my '/' 
autoassemble .  And do to this I am permanently stuck at 0.90 version of the 
raid table .  No big shakes for that .  But at sometime in the past there was a 
discussion to have the 0.90 raid table be removed ,  NOW THAT SCARES THE H?LL 
OUT OF ME .  So far Neil has not done so .

 	I am unaware of any record from Neil or other maintainer(s) of the 
/md/ device tree saying that they will not remove the 0.90 table and the 
autoassembly functions there .  I'd very much like to hear a statement saying 
there will not be a removal of the autoassembly functions for 0.90 raid table 
from the kernel tree .

 		Tia ,  JimL
-- 
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| James   W.   Laferriere | System    Techniques | Give me VMS     |
| Network&System Engineer | 3237     Holden Road |  Give me Linux  |
| babydr@baby-dragons.com | Fairbanks, AK. 99709 |   only  on  AXP |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Dienstag 16 Februar 2010, Nick Bowler wrote:
> On 22:06 Tue 16 Feb     , Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> > On Dienstag 16 Februar 2010, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> > > Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> > > > On Sonntag 14 Februar 2010, you wrote:
> > > >> In other words, 'auto-detection' for 1.x format devices is using an
> > > >> initrd/initramfs.
> > > > 
> > > > which makes 1.x format useless for everybody who does not want to
> > > > deal with initrd/initramfs.
> > > 
> > > You make this sound like some major big deal. are you running your own
> > > distribution? In most cases mkinitrd does the right thing when you
> > > "make install" the kernel, and if you are doing something in the build
> > > so complex that it needs options, you really should understand the
> > > options and be sure you're doing what you want.
> > > 
> > > Generally this involves preloading a module or two, and if you need it
> > > every time you probably should have built it in, anyway.
> > > 
> > > My opinion...
> > 
> > I am running my own kernels - and of course everything that is needed to
> > boot and get the basic system up is built in. Why should I make the disk
> > drivers modules?
> > That does not make sense.
> 
> I agree that it makes little sense to make something a module when you
> can't unload it anyway, but...
> 
> > And the reason is simple: even when the system is completely fucked up, I
> > want a kernel that is able to boot until init=/bin/bb takes over.
> 
> I put a complete set of recovery tools into my initramfses so that when
> the system is completely fucked up, I have a kernel that is able to boot
> until rdinit=/bin/zsh (or /bin/bb, if you prefer) takes over.
> 
> This has the added advantage of working when the root filesystem cannot
> be mounted at all: a scenario which does not seem too far-fetched when
> the filesystem is located on a raid array.

and what do you do if you have to boot from a cd/usb stick and need to access 
the raid?

Simple with auto assembling. Not so much without.

Glück Auf,
Volker

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Nick Bowler]

On 22:06 Tue 16 Feb     , Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> On Dienstag 16 Februar 2010, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> > Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> > > On Sonntag 14 Februar 2010, you wrote:
> > >> In other words, 'auto-detection' for 1.x format devices is using an
> > >> initrd/initramfs.
> > > 
> > > which makes 1.x format useless for everybody who does not want to deal
> > > with initrd/initramfs.
> > 
> > You make this sound like some major big deal. are you running your own
> > distribution? In most cases mkinitrd does the right thing when you "make
> > install" the kernel, and if you are doing something in the build so
> > complex that it needs options, you really should understand the options
> > and be sure you're doing what you want.
> > 
> > Generally this involves preloading a module or two, and if you need it
> > every time you probably should have built it in, anyway.
> > 
> > My opinion...
> 
> I am running my own kernels - and of course everything that is needed to boot 
> and get the basic system up is built in. Why should I make the disk drivers 
> modules? 
> That does not make sense.

I agree that it makes little sense to make something a module when you
can't unload it anyway, but...

> And the reason is simple: even when the system is completely fucked up, I want 
> a kernel that is able to boot until init=/bin/bb takes over.

I put a complete set of recovery tools into my initramfses so that when
the system is completely fucked up, I have a kernel that is able to boot
until rdinit=/bin/zsh (or /bin/bb, if you prefer) takes over.

This has the added advantage of working when the root filesystem cannot
be mounted at all: a scenario which does not seem too far-fetched when
the filesystem is located on a raid array.

-- 
Nick Bowler, Elliptic Technologies (http://www.elliptictech.com/)

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Bodo Eggert]

Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> wrote:
> Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>> On Sonntag 14 Februar 2010, you wrote:

>>> In other words, 'auto-detection' for 1.x format devices is using an
>>> initrd/initramfs.
>>>     
>>
>> which makes 1.x format useless for everybody who does not want to deal with
>> initrd/initramfs.
>>   
> 
> You make this sound like some major big deal. are you running your own
> distribution? In most cases mkinitrd does the right thing when you "make
> install" the kernel,

I don't know what "make install" will do, so I'll have to expect random
results.

I don't expect it to copy bzimage to /boot/linux-version-commentfrommymind,
point the "ln" or "lt" entry (depending on if I want to upgrade or to test
a new kernel) in lilo.conf to the new kernel and to run lilo -R ln.

I don't expect it to sftp the kernel from my build machine to my server, either.

I expect it to move ~/bin/umount (a wrapper around /bin/umount fusermount -u
and smbumount) to initrd:/bin/umount. It might also create an initrd with a
passwordless rescue mode. Or it will use a minimal shell, and in case of
trouble, I have to fight the shell, too. In short: I expect it to backstab me.
(As a bonus, you can't read about rdinit= if you encounter your first initrd-ed
 system and init=/bin/sh does not work.)

> and if you are doing something in the build so 
> complex that it needs options, you really should understand the options
> and be sure you're doing what you want.

What I do is the most simple thing you can do. No initrd no cry. That's why I
have to use the 0.9 format. This - and the fact that my distribution defaults
to using the 1.0 format - is what I discovered after upgrading my system last
time.

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Dienstag 16 Februar 2010, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> > On Sonntag 14 Februar 2010, you wrote:
> >> In other words, 'auto-detection' for 1.x format devices is using an
> >> initrd/initramfs.
> > 
> > which makes 1.x format useless for everybody who does not want to deal
> > with initrd/initramfs.
> 
> You make this sound like some major big deal. are you running your own
> distribution? In most cases mkinitrd does the right thing when you "make
> install" the kernel, and if you are doing something in the build so
> complex that it needs options, you really should understand the options
> and be sure you're doing what you want.
> 
> Generally this involves preloading a module or two, and if you need it
> every time you probably should have built it in, anyway.
> 
> My opinion...

I am running my own kernels - and of course everything that is needed to boot 
and get the basic system up is built in. Why should I make the disk drivers 
modules? 
That does not make sense.

And the reason is simple: even when the system is completely fucked up, I want 
a kernel that is able to boot until init=/bin/bb takes over.

Glück Auf
Volker

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Luca Berra]

On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 03:37:08PM +0100, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>so assume you have an initrd and metadata 1.x without auto assembling.
>
>You do some changes to the raid and screw up something else. Next boot nothing 
>works. Mostly because the mdadm.conf in your initrd is not correct.
>
>You whip out your trusty usb stick with a resuce system - and you are stuck. 
>If autoassembling would work, you would have working md devices you could 
>mount and edit the files you have to. But you don't and the mdadm.conf in the 
>initrd is outdated.
>
>Sounds like 'you are screwed'.

did you ever try this?
mdadm is able to activate an array without need of any configuration
file.
The reason a configuration file is copied in initrd is solely to
preserve non-default activation parameters (i.e. array name) and such.

>And that because ...? Is there any good reason not to have autoassmbling in 
>the kernel?

about the same reason why the X server is not in the kernel as well.

L.

-- 
Luca Berra -- bluca@comedia.it
         Communication Media & Services S.r.l.
  /"\
  \ /     ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN
   X        AGAINST HTML MAIL
  / \

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[John Robinson]

On 16/02/2010 14:37, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> On Dienstag 16 Februar 2010, John Robinson wrote:
>> On 14/02/2010 19:13, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>>> On Sonntag 14 Februar 2010, you wrote:
>>>> On 14/02/2010 18:40, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>>>>> On Sonntag 14 Februar 2010, you wrote:
>>>>>> In other words, 'auto-detection' for 1.x format devices is using an
>>>>>> initrd/initramfs.
>>>>> which makes 1.x format useless for everybody who does not want to deal
>>>>> with initrd/initramfs.
>>>> True, but afaik every distro uses an initrd/initramfs and bundles tools
>>>> making it easy to manage and customise them, so what's the problem?
>>> and distros do it because of all the drivers they have to ship. But for
>>> example I am not bound by such limitations. Why should I deal with that?
>>> It is hard enough not to forget 'make modules_install'. And now add
>>> initrd. Autodetecting just works - but if you use an initrd an it
>>> doesn't. Where do you start?
>>>
>>> Initrd's maybe great for distro packagers, but are they really usefull
>>> for anybody else?
>> Not just for distro packagers, they're useful for distro users, which
>> are presumably 99% of Linux users these days, including the vast
>> majority of enterprise users who like tested, supported systems.
>>
>> But even for people building their own kernels, initrd/initramfs are
>> useful if you're using LVM, or indeed trying to boot off anything that's
>> not a simple device.
> 
> so assume you have an initrd and metadata 1.x without auto assembling.
> 
> You do some changes to the raid and screw up something else. Next boot nothing 
> works. Mostly because the mdadm.conf in your initrd is not correct.
> 
> You whip out your trusty usb stick with a resuce system - and you are stuck. 
> If autoassembling would work, you would have working md devices you could 
> mount and edit the files you have to. But you don't and the mdadm.conf in the 
> initrd is outdated.
> 
> Sounds like 'you are screwed'.

No; mdadm can assemble arrays without needing a conf file (at least 
arrays which have superblocks).

And if you have otherwise screwed something up with the RAID, no amount 
of in-kernel autoassembly is going to help, in fact it's more likely to 
get it wrong and make things worse; you need a command line and mdadm to 
sort it out.

Cheers,

John.

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Bill Davidsen]

Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> On Sonntag 14 Februar 2010, you wrote:
>
>   
>> In other words, 'auto-detection' for 1.x format devices is using an
>> initrd/initramfs.
>>     
>
> which makes 1.x format useless for everybody who does not want to deal with 
> initrd/initramfs.
>   

You make this sound like some major big deal. are you running your own 
distribution? In most cases mkinitrd does the right thing when you "make 
install" the kernel, and if you are doing something in the build so 
complex that it needs options, you really should understand the options 
and be sure you're doing what you want.

Generally this involves preloading a module or two, and if you need it 
every time you probably should have built it in, anyway.

My opinion...

-- 
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  "We can't solve today's problems by using the same thinking we
   used in creating them." - Einstein

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Robin Hill]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1078 bytes --]

On Tue Feb 16, 2010 at 03:37:08PM +0100, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:

> so assume you have an initrd and metadata 1.x without auto assembling.
> 
> You do some changes to the raid and screw up something else. Next boot nothing 
> works. Mostly because the mdadm.conf in your initrd is not correct.
> 
> You whip out your trusty usb stick with a resuce system - and you are stuck. 
> If autoassembling would work, you would have working md devices you could 
> mount and edit the files you have to. But you don't and the mdadm.conf in the 
> initrd is outdated.
> 
> Sounds like 'you are screwed'.
> 
Or you drop to the recovery shell in the initrd, edit the mdadm.conf
file (or run mdadm with whatever options you like to find out what's
actually happening), and continue with processing the init script and
booting.

HTH,
    Robin
-- 
     ___        
    ( ' }     |       Robin Hill        <robin@robinhill.me.uk> |
   / / )      | Little Jim says ....                            |
  // !!       |      "He fallen in de water !!"                 |

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Dienstag 16 Februar 2010, John Robinson wrote:
> On 14/02/2010 19:13, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> > On Sonntag 14 Februar 2010, you wrote:
> >> On 14/02/2010 18:40, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> >>> On Sonntag 14 Februar 2010, you wrote:
> >>>> In other words, 'auto-detection' for 1.x format devices is using an
> >>>> initrd/initramfs.
> >>> 
> >>> which makes 1.x format useless for everybody who does not want to deal
> >>> with initrd/initramfs.
> >> 
> >> True, but afaik every distro uses an initrd/initramfs and bundles tools
> >> making it easy to manage and customise them, so what's the problem?
> > 
> > and distros do it because of all the drivers they have to ship. But for
> > example I am not bound by such limitations. Why should I deal with that?
> > It is hard enough not to forget 'make modules_install'. And now add
> > initrd. Autodetecting just works - but if you use an initrd an it
> > doesn't. Where do you start?
> > 
> > Initrd's maybe great for distro packagers, but are they really usefull
> > for anybody else?
> 
> Not just for distro packagers, they're useful for distro users, which
> are presumably 99% of Linux users these days, including the vast
> majority of enterprise users who like tested, supported systems.
> 
> But even for people building their own kernels, initrd/initramfs are
> useful if you're using LVM, or indeed trying to boot off anything that's
> not a simple device.

so assume you have an initrd and metadata 1.x without auto assembling.

You do some changes to the raid and screw up something else. Next boot nothing 
works. Mostly because the mdadm.conf in your initrd is not correct.

You whip out your trusty usb stick with a resuce system - and you are stuck. 
If autoassembling would work, you would have working md devices you could 
mount and edit the files you have to. But you don't and the mdadm.conf in the 
initrd is outdated.

Sounds like 'you are screwed'.

Or you have that famous grub boot line to have root autoassembled but the 
device names changed. 

Yeah, sounds really great.

And that because ...? Is there any good reason not to have autoassmbling in 
the kernel?

Glück Auf
Volker

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[John Robinson]

On 14/02/2010 19:13, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> On Sonntag 14 Februar 2010, you wrote:
>> On 14/02/2010 18:40, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>>> On Sonntag 14 Februar 2010, you wrote:
>>>> In other words, 'auto-detection' for 1.x format devices is using an
>>>> initrd/initramfs.
>>> which makes 1.x format useless for everybody who does not want to deal
>>> with initrd/initramfs.
>> True, but afaik every distro uses an initrd/initramfs and bundles tools
>> making it easy to manage and customise them, so what's the problem?
> 
> and distros do it because of all the drivers they have to ship. But for 
> example I am not bound by such limitations. Why should I deal with that?
> It is hard enough not to forget 'make modules_install'. And now add initrd. 
> Autodetecting just works - but if you use an initrd an it doesn't. Where do 
> you start?
> 
> Initrd's maybe great for distro packagers, but are they really usefull for 
> anybody else?

Not just for distro packagers, they're useful for distro users, which 
are presumably 99% of Linux users these days, including the vast 
majority of enterprise users who like tested, supported systems.

But even for people building their own kernels, initrd/initramfs are 
useful if you're using LVM, or indeed trying to boot off anything that's 
not a simple device.

Cheers,

John.

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[martin f krafft]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 870 bytes --]

also sprach Gabor Gombas <gombasg@digikabel.hu> [2010.02.15.1028 +1300]:
> There is no autodetection with 1.1. Once you have mdadm.conf you have
> pretty hard rules about what to look for and how to assemble it - ie.
> there is not much left to "auto" detect. Real autodetection would mean
> there is _no_ such information available, and you figure out everything
> by just looking at the devices you find.

Which, coincidentally, is where we're heading with incremental
assembly. Check the Debian experimental package if you want to try.

-- 
martin | http://madduck.net/ | http://two.sentenc.es/
 
"we should have a volleyballocracy.
 we elect a six-pack of presidents.
 each one serves until they screw up,
 at which point they rotate."
                                                      -- dennis miller
 
spamtraps: madduck.bogus@madduck.net

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/) --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Luca Berra]

On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 02:51:59AM +0100, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>>0.90 has a very bad problem, which is that it is hard to distinguish
>>between a RAID partition at the end of volume and a full RAID device.
>>This is because 0.90 doesn't actually tell you the start of the device.
>>
>>Then, of course, there are a lot of limitations on size, number of
>>devices, and so on in 0.90.
>
>but it is the only format supporting autodetection. 
>
>So - when will autodetection be introduced with 1.X? And if not, why not?
>
>All I found was 'autodetection might be troublesome' and nothing else.
Well the discussions that lead to deprecation of in-kernel autodetection
date back to 2005 or earlier, so it's not easy to find.
iirc the main problem was that autodetection used the super minor to
name the device and it got very confused if you moved a drive from a
system to another.

mdadm based autodetection is reliable since you can associate uuid with
device name in mdadm.conf

> But dealing with initrds is troublesome too. Pure evil even. 
not really much more complex than getting kernel to do the right thing.
and it is orders of magnitude easier to debug than kernel code.

L.


-- 
Luca Berra -- bluca@comedia.it
         Communication Media & Services S.r.l.
  /"\
  \ /     ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN
   X        AGAINST HTML MAIL
  / \

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Gabor Gombas]

On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 09:47:16PM +0100, Asdo wrote:

> 1.x autodetection worked great for me in initramfs. Basically you
> only need /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf copied to initramfs (via
> update-initramfs),

There is no autodetection with 1.1. Once you have mdadm.conf you have
pretty hard rules about what to look for and how to assemble it - ie.
there is not much left to "auto" detect. Real autodetection would mean
there is _no_ such information available, and you figure out everything
by just looking at the devices you find.

> initramfs procedure.
> Also consider 1.x allows to choose which arrays are autoassembled
> (hostname written in the array name equal to hostname in the machine
> or specified in mdadm.conf): this is more precise than 0.9 which
> autoassembles all, I think.

And also causes much more pain when you install machines on an internal
network where it gets a random name (in fact all new machines get the
same temporary name), then it is moved to its real location and
reconfigured with its real name. And you wonder why your arrays aren't
assembled any more...

Gabor

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Henrique de Moraes Holschuh]

On Sun, 14 Feb 2010, Asdo wrote:
> >In my experience, every time we moved critical codepaths to userspace, we
> >ended up decreasing the *overall* system reliability.
> I don't see it like this.
> You have the same chance to screw up the system by making mistakes
> in the files in /etc, in the networking config, the firewall, the
> server applications...

Those don't require a reboot test to verify, and are far easier to rollback.

Also, they can (and SHOULD) be done on testbeds.  While the kind of screwup
where an initramfs decides to bite you hard, usually cannot (they tend to
happen when things already went horribly wrong).

> (note: I speak for Debian/Ubuntu, redhat's initramfs I think is more messy.)
> 1.x autodetection worked great for me in initramfs. Basically you
> only need /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf copied to initramfs (via
> update-initramfs), the rest is done by Debian/Ubuntu standard
> initramfs procedure.

Yeah, cute.  What happens when the initrd is not updated for whatever
reason?  That is a new failure mode that doesn't exist with 0.9 and kernel
autorun.

It boils down to whether failure modes new to 1.x without autorun are more
likely to happen than the failure modes that are specific to 0.9 with
autorun.

IME, the 0.9 ones are less likely to happen, and I have been through quite a
few incidents involving boot problems.  Experience told me that initrds are
far more prone to operator errors than the kernel autorun.  Debian's
*stable* initramfs creators have not screwed up on me yet, but I am well
aware that they could.

> Also consider 1.x allows to choose which arrays are autoassembled
> (hostname written in the array name equal to hostname in the machine
> or specified in mdadm.conf): this is more precise than 0.9 which
> autoassembles all, I think.

That can be either a good or bad thing depending on the situation, so I
would never use it to count for (or against) 1.x or 0.9.

-- 
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Gabor Gombas]

On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 06:53:38PM +0000, John Robinson wrote:

> True, but afaik every distro uses an initrd/initramfs and bundles
> tools making it easy to manage and customise them, so what's the
> problem?

Distro provided initramfs generators have a bad habit assuming you
patch/build your kernel like the distro does. If you want to use a
vanilla kernel with different things built in/built as modules/not built
at all, then you can get nasty surprises, and debugging can be rather
painful.

My current view is if you use a distro kernel, then you should also use
an initramfs (in fact you do not have a choice). But if you want to
build your own kernel, then you should get rid of the initramfs.

Gabor

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Henrique de Moraes Holschuh]

On Sun, 14 Feb 2010, Michael Evans wrote:
> Maybe you'd like a simple, easy to customize initramfs creator.

If the distro doesn't use it (as its default initramfs creator, even), it is
a lot more chance for breakage.  Less testing, and all that...

And if I am deploying a specific kernel in a server, you better believe it
is important enough that all due care will be taken so that it won't need an
initrd to mount the root filesystem to begin with ;-)

-- 
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Asdo]

Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010, Michael Evans wrote:
>   
>> I remember hearing that 1.x had /no/ plans for kernel level
>> auto-detection ever.  That can be accomplished in early-userspace
>> leaving the code in the kernel much less complex, and therefore far
>> more reliable.
>>     
>
> Yes, it is far more reliable kernel side, if only because it doesn't do
> anything.
>
> But the userspace reliability is _not_ good.  initrds are a source of
> problems the moment things start to go wrong, and that's when they are not
> the problem themselves.
>
> And the end result is a system that needs manual intervention to get its
> root filesystem back.
>
> In my experience, every time we moved critical codepaths to userspace, we
> ended up decreasing the *overall* system reliability.
>   
I don't see it like this.
You have the same chance to screw up the system by making mistakes in 
the files in /etc, in the networking config, the firewall, the server 
applications...
(note: I speak for Debian/Ubuntu, redhat's initramfs I think is more messy.)
1.x autodetection worked great for me in initramfs. Basically you only 
need /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf copied to initramfs (via update-initramfs), 
the rest is done by Debian/Ubuntu standard initramfs procedure.
Also consider 1.x allows to choose which arrays are autoassembled 
(hostname written in the array name equal to hostname in the machine or 
specified in mdadm.conf): this is more precise than 0.9 which 
autoassembles all, I think.

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Michael Evans]

On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
<hmh@hmh.eng.br> wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010, Michael Evans wrote:
>> I remember hearing that 1.x had /no/ plans for kernel level
>> auto-detection ever.  That can be accomplished in early-userspace
>> leaving the code in the kernel much less complex, and therefore far
>> more reliable.
>
> Yes, it is far more reliable kernel side, if only because it doesn't do
> anything.
>
> But the userspace reliability is _not_ good.  initrds are a source of
> problems the moment things start to go wrong, and that's when they are not
> the problem themselves.
>
> And the end result is a system that needs manual intervention to get its
> root filesystem back.
>
> In my experience, every time we moved critical codepaths to userspace, we
> ended up decreasing the *overall* system reliability.
>
> --
>  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
>  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
>  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
>  Henrique Holschuh
>

Maybe you'd like a simple, easy to customize initramfs creator.
That's exactly what I was aiming for when I made AEUIO
https://sourceforge.net/projects/aeuio  There are some things that
could use improvement, but if your system can boot without loading
modules it should be more than sufficient even across kernel versions.

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Henrique de Moraes Holschuh]

On Sat, 13 Feb 2010, Michael Evans wrote:
> I remember hearing that 1.x had /no/ plans for kernel level
> auto-detection ever.  That can be accomplished in early-userspace
> leaving the code in the kernel much less complex, and therefore far
> more reliable.

Yes, it is far more reliable kernel side, if only because it doesn't do
anything.

But the userspace reliability is _not_ good.  initrds are a source of
problems the moment things start to go wrong, and that's when they are not
the problem themselves.

And the end result is a system that needs manual intervention to get its
root filesystem back.

In my experience, every time we moved critical codepaths to userspace, we
ended up decreasing the *overall* system reliability.

-- 
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[John Robinson]

On 14/02/2010 18:40, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> On Sonntag 14 Februar 2010, you wrote:
> 
>> In other words, 'auto-detection' for 1.x format devices is using an
>> initrd/initramfs.
> 
> which makes 1.x format useless for everybody who does not want to deal with 
> initrd/initramfs.

True, but afaik every distro uses an initrd/initramfs and bundles tools 
making it easy to manage and customise them, so what's the problem?

Cheers,

John.

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Sonntag 14 Februar 2010, you wrote:

> 
> In other words, 'auto-detection' for 1.x format devices is using an
> initrd/initramfs.

which makes 1.x format useless for everybody who does not want to deal with 
initrd/initramfs.

Glück Auf,
Volker

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Michael Evans]

On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 11:21 PM,  <david@lang.hm> wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010, Michael Evans wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
>> <volkerarmin@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 0.90 has a very bad problem, which is that it is hard to distinguish
>>>> between a RAID partition at the end of volume and a full RAID device.
>>>> This is because 0.90 doesn't actually tell you the start of the device.
>>>>
>>>> Then, of course, there are a lot of limitations on size, number of
>>>> devices, and so on in 0.90.
>>>
>>> but it is the only format supporting autodetection.
>>>
>>> So - when will autodetection be introduced with 1.X? And if not, why not?
>>>
>>> All I found was 'autodetection might be troublesome' and nothing else.
>>>  But dealing with initrds is troublesome too. Pure evil even.
>>>
>>> Gl?ck Auf,
>>> Volker
>>> --
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> I remember hearing that 1.x had /no/ plans for kernel level
>> auto-detection ever.  That can be accomplished in early-userspace
>> leaving the code in the kernel much less complex, and therefore far
>> more reliable.
>>
>> In other words, 'auto-detection' for 1.x format devices is using an
>> initrd/initramfs.
>
> hmm, I've used 1.x formats without an initrd/initramfs (and without any
> conifg file on the server) and have had no problem with them being
> discovered. I haven't tried to use one for a boot/root device, so that may
> be the difference.
>
> David Lang

Yes, that is the difference.  You must have a more traditional simple
block device and filesystem drivers compiled in.  You have no need for
extra drivers or higher level device detection and evaluation (with
user-set policies to determine operation).  Anything past root-fs
mount can happen in normal user-space before logins are enabled.

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[david]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 1542 bytes --]

On Sat, 13 Feb 2010, Michael Evans wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
> <volkerarmin@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> 0.90 has a very bad problem, which is that it is hard to distinguish
>>> between a RAID partition at the end of volume and a full RAID device.
>>> This is because 0.90 doesn't actually tell you the start of the device.
>>>
>>> Then, of course, there are a lot of limitations on size, number of
>>> devices, and so on in 0.90.
>>
>> but it is the only format supporting autodetection.
>>
>> So - when will autodetection be introduced with 1.X? And if not, why not?
>>
>> All I found was 'autodetection might be troublesome' and nothing else.
>>  But dealing with initrds is troublesome too. Pure evil even.
>>
>> Gl?ck Auf,
>> Volker
>> --
>> 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
>>
>
> I remember hearing that 1.x had /no/ plans for kernel level
> auto-detection ever.  That can be accomplished in early-userspace
> leaving the code in the kernel much less complex, and therefore far
> more reliable.
>
> In other words, 'auto-detection' for 1.x format devices is using an
> initrd/initramfs.

hmm, I've used 1.x formats without an initrd/initramfs (and without any 
conifg file on the server) and have had no problem with them being 
discovered. I haven't tried to use one for a boot/root device, so that may 
be the difference.

David Lang

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Michael Evans]

On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
<volkerarmin@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>0.90 has a very bad problem, which is that it is hard to distinguish
>>between a RAID partition at the end of volume and a full RAID device.
>>This is because 0.90 doesn't actually tell you the start of the device.
>>
>>Then, of course, there are a lot of limitations on size, number of
>>devices, and so on in 0.90.
>
> but it is the only format supporting autodetection.
>
> So - when will autodetection be introduced with 1.X? And if not, why not?
>
> All I found was 'autodetection might be troublesome' and nothing else.
>  But dealing with initrds is troublesome too. Pure evil even.
>
> Glück Auf,
> Volker
> --
> 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
>

I remember hearing that 1.x had /no/ plans for kernel level
auto-detection ever.  That can be accomplished in early-userspace
leaving the code in the kernel much less complex, and therefore far
more reliable.

In other words, 'auto-detection' for 1.x format devices is using an
initrd/initramfs.
--
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: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Michael Evans]

On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
<volkerarmin@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>0.90 has a very bad problem, which is that it is hard to distinguish
>>between a RAID partition at the end of volume and a full RAID device.
>>This is because 0.90 doesn't actually tell you the start of the device.
>>
>>Then, of course, there are a lot of limitations on size, number of
>>devices, and so on in 0.90.
>
> but it is the only format supporting autodetection.
>
> So - when will autodetection be introduced with 1.X? And if not, why not?
>
> All I found was 'autodetection might be troublesome' and nothing else.
>  But dealing with initrds is troublesome too. Pure evil even.
>
> Glück Auf,
> Volker
> --
> 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
>

I remember hearing that 1.x had /no/ plans for kernel level
auto-detection ever.  That can be accomplished in early-userspace
leaving the code in the kernel much less complex, and therefore far
more reliable.

In other words, 'auto-detection' for 1.x format devices is using an
initrd/initramfs.

Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

>0.90 has a very bad problem, which is that it is hard to distinguish
>between a RAID partition at the end of volume and a full RAID device.
>This is because 0.90 doesn't actually tell you the start of the device.
>
>Then, of course, there are a lot of limitations on size, number of
>devices, and so on in 0.90.

but it is the only format supporting autodetection. 

So - when will autodetection be introduced with 1.X? And if not, why not?

All I found was 'autodetection might be troublesome' and nothing else.
 But dealing with initrds is troublesome too. Pure evil even. 

Glück Auf,
Volker
--
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: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

>0.90 has a very bad problem, which is that it is hard to distinguish
>between a RAID partition at the end of volume and a full RAID device.
>This is because 0.90 doesn't actually tell you the start of the device.
>
>Then, of course, there are a lot of limitations on size, number of
>devices, and so on in 0.90.

but it is the only format supporting autodetection. 

So - when will autodetection be introduced with 1.X? And if not, why not?

All I found was 'autodetection might be troublesome' and nothing else.
 But dealing with initrds is troublesome too. Pure evil even. 

Glück Auf,
Volker