From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37A70C433DB for ; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 21:50:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EACF660235 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 21:50:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231551AbhA1Vuu (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Jan 2021 16:50:50 -0500 Received: from moglen4.apt.columbia.edu ([160.39.60.15]:37876 "EHLO mx.sflc.info" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231531AbhA1Vur (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Jan 2021 16:50:47 -0500 Received: from [10.65.72.101] (onering.p.sflc.info [10.65.72.101]) by mx.sflc.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 107F2C1F520; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 16:50:06 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=softwarefreedom.org; s=dkim; t=1611870606; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=yPHKMOMpfYVcMbHR4zJexyxChHhHTvr/0UQhXhUUvWA=; b=HSSJEOAS42k9KEdcVpBzb+yTf582pH0YylLte3h1xNzDWVASGiG0XOIh9pmMpgLGZrTfSQ 3+i0TMP00sIwuzqRyEn7SsO7bZs/NQRriDHyIHb7+ILKzGa6U+EA/L9o1HNeqDYA3mHIkT jOdaa9+Ay8Ge7b5ASVvwUAPXD8cDWYM= To: antlists , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org References: <09505ed1-ad29-28f1-627e-8a6a0b8df3a4@softwarefreedom.org> From: Daniel Gnoutcheff Subject: Re: "attempt to access beyond end of device" when reshaping raid10 from near=2 to offset=2 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 16:50:05 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org On 1/27/21 7:59 PM, antlists wrote: > I seem to remember this coming up very recently. And I also seem to > remember them coming up with fixes but I'm not sure if it's solved. > > So if you search the archive you should find a recent thread and an > update should fix it properly soon. > > Oh - and as for Stretch, old mdadm and Ubuntu are known to be, shall we > say, problematic when you reshape an array, so please try not to ... :-) Thanks for warning me about reshapes on stretch. I was in fact planning some reshapes on a production stretch system. I shall reconsider. :) I would be curious to read the thread in which the raid10 layout reshape issue has already been discussed, but I've not been able to find it. I tried 'raid10 reshape', 'raid10 layout reshape', 'raid layout reshape', and 'reshape "attempt to access beyond end of device"' in the search box at [1], and I've skimmed the subject lines for the last two month's worth of messages, but I couldn't find anything applicable. Are there other terms I should try? [1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/raid/ Many thanks, -- Daniel Gnoutcheff Systems Administrator Software Freedom Law Center