[gentoo-user] raid1 grub ext4

[gentoo-user] raid1 grub ext4

[James]

Hello,

Following the guides (previous post) I'm not able to set
up grub:
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-x86+raid+lvm2-quickinstall.xml
http://en.gentoo-wiki.com/wiki/RAID

grub> find /boot/grub/stage1

does not work, even though the stage one file is there 
grub.conf look like the example in these files.

grub>  root (hd0,0)
 Filesystem type unknown, partition type 0xfd


I used ext4 for / and /boot partitions.
(is this a problem? (sys-boot/grub-0.97-r10}

ideas? lots of old posts about not being
able to boot grub-0.97 off of ext4, unless
patched?

James

Re: [gentoo-user] raid1 grub ext4

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 912 bytes --]

On Monday 11 April 2011 19:12:36 James wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Following the guides (previous post) I'm not able to set
> up grub:
> http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-x86+raid+lvm2-quickinstall.xml
> http://en.gentoo-wiki.com/wiki/RAID
> 
> grub> find /boot/grub/stage1
> 
> does not work, even though the stage one file is there
> grub.conf look like the example in these files.
> 
> grub>  root (hd0,0)
>  Filesystem type unknown, partition type 0xfd
> 
> 
> I used ext4 for / and /boot partitions.
> (is this a problem? (sys-boot/grub-0.97-r10}
> 
> ideas? lots of old posts about not being
> able to boot grub-0.97 off of ext4, unless
> patched?

James, if I'm not wrong (legacy) sys-boot/grub-0.97-r10 does not have drivers 
for ext4.  Not sure if there's a patch for it, or if grub2 can boot from ext4.

Either way, why is it that /boot needs to be on ext4?
-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] raid1 grub ext4

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 358 bytes --]

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 18:12:36 +0000 (UTC), James wrote:

> grub> find /boot/grub/stage1  
> 
> does not work, even though the stage one file is there 
> 
> I used ext4 for / and /boot partitions.

If /boot is on a separate partition, you should be using

find /grub/stage1


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Religious error: (A)tone, (R)epent, (I)mmolate?

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

Re: [gentoo-user] raid1 grub ext4

[Mark Shields]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 522 bytes --]

On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 18:12:36 +0000 (UTC), James wrote:
>
> > grub> find /boot/grub/stage1
> >
> > does not work, even though the stage one file is there
> >
> > I used ext4 for / and /boot partitions.
>
> If /boot is on a separate partition, you should be using
>
> find /grub/stage1
>
>
> --
> Neil Bothwick
>
> Religious error: (A)tone, (R)epent, (I)mmolate?
>

If the symlink is there for boot -> /boot -- and it is by default -- both
work.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 908 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] raid1 grub ext4

[Stroller]

On 11/4/2011, at 9:18pm, Mick wrote:
>> ...
>> I used ext4 for / and /boot partitions.
>> (is this a problem? (sys-boot/grub-0.97-r10}
> 
> James, if I'm not wrong (legacy) sys-boot/grub-0.97-r10 does not have drivers 
> for ext4.  Not sure if there's a patch for it, or if grub2 can boot from ext4.

Use ext2 for /boot, James.

There's no need for extents on such a small partition, nor journalling (because you write to /boot so rarely, the likelihood of a power failure when you're doing so is minuscule).

Stroller.

Re: [gentoo-user] raid1 grub ext4

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 414 bytes --]

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 21:09:17 -0500, Mark Shields wrote:

> > If /boot is on a separate partition, you should be using
> >
> > find /grub/stage1

> If the symlink is there for boot -> /boot -- and it is by default --
> both work.

I've found GRUB's handling of symlinks to be variable at best. Try
searching for the real file.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

A chicken is an egg's way of producing more eggs.

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

[gentoo-user] Re: raid1 grub ext4

[James]

Stroller <stroller <at> stellar.eclipse.co.uk> writes:


> > James, if I'm not wrong (legacy) sys-boot/grub-0.97-r10 
> > does not have drivers for ext4.  Not sure if there's 
> > a patch for it, or if grub2 can boot from ext4.

Mick, that's what I was wondering.
No evidence either way, that I could find
 so I decided to make everything ext4.

> There's no need for extents on such a small partition, 
> nor journalling (because you write to /boot so
> rarely, the likelihood of a power failure when you're 
> doing so is minuscule).

Yea, sure, but that's not the point. I just wanted to
use ext4 for everything. Not on this system, but often,
my boot partition is very active, as I copy many kernels
there for many different (arch)machines and different hardware
(HD, SSD, CF, SD...) I try to make the many systems I admin
as homogeneous as possible, hence the switch to ext4
for boot.

James

[gentoo-user] Re: raid1 grub ext4

[James]

Neil Bothwick <neil <at> digimed.co.uk> writes:


> > > If /boot is on a separate partition, you should be using

It is.

> > > find /grub/stage1

grub> find /grub/stage1
Error 15: File not found

grub> find /boot/grub/stage1
Error 15: File not found

> > If the symlink is there for boot -> /boot -- and it is by default --
> > both work.

# ls -alg <snip>
lrwxrwxrwx  1 root       1 Apr  6 21:40 boot -> .
drwxr-xr-x  2 root    1024 Apr 11 12:05 grub


> I've found GRUB's handling of symlinks to be variable at best. Try
> searching for the real file.

Everything I try within grub indicated the filesystem is unknown.

Maybe unmount the boot partition, reformat it to ext2 copy over the kernrel
(run what mdadm commands again)  remount and see if it works?

Other ideas?


James

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: raid1 grub ext4

[Peter Humphrey]

On Tuesday 12 April 2011 15:10:52 James wrote:
> Stroller <stroller <at> stellar.eclipse.co.uk> writes:

> > There's no need for extents on such a small partition,
> > nor journalling (because you write to /boot so
> > rarely, the likelihood of a power failure when you're
> > doing so is minuscule).
> 
> Yea, sure, but that's not the point. I just wanted to
> use ext4 for everything. Not on this system, but often,
> my boot partition is very active, as I copy many kernels
> there for many different (arch)machines and different hardware
> (HD, SSD, CF, SD...) I try to make the many systems I admin
> as homogeneous as possible, hence the switch to ext4
> for boot.

Nevertheless, if ext4 isn't working for you you should follow the advice you've 
been given and format /boot as ext2. All my boot partitions are ext2, regardless 
of which others are ext4 or reiserfs.

-- 
Rgds
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: raid1 grub ext4

[Dale]

Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Tuesday 12 April 2011 15:10:52 James wrote:
>    
>> Stroller<stroller<at>  stellar.eclipse.co.uk>  writes:
>>      
>    
>>> There's no need for extents on such a small partition,
>>> nor journalling (because you write to /boot so
>>> rarely, the likelihood of a power failure when you're
>>> doing so is minuscule).
>>>        
>> Yea, sure, but that's not the point. I just wanted to
>> use ext4 for everything. Not on this system, but often,
>> my boot partition is very active, as I copy many kernels
>> there for many different (arch)machines and different hardware
>> (HD, SSD, CF, SD...) I try to make the many systems I admin
>> as homogeneous as possible, hence the switch to ext4
>> for boot.
>>      
> Nevertheless, if ext4 isn't working for you you should follow the advice you've
> been given and format /boot as ext2. All my boot partitions are ext2, regardless
> of which others are ext4 or reiserfs.
>
>    

Same here.  I use ext3 and reiserfs, depending on what it is, but /boot 
is always ext2.  Why, it works well with grub and has for many many 
years and most likely will for many years to come as well.

As for making things the same, that my not always be a good idea 
either.  I put some things on reiserfs but some on ext3.  It seams each 
file system has its strengths and weaknesses.  I read that portage, with 
a lot of small files, does better on ext* file systems.  So I put 
portage on that.  Most everything else is on reiserfs.

Just my $0.02 worth and that ain't much.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: raid1 grub ext4

[Joost Roeleveld]

On Tuesday 12 April 2011 09:57:26 Dale wrote:
> Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > On Tuesday 12 April 2011 15:10:52 James wrote:
> >> Stroller<stroller<at>  stellar.eclipse.co.uk>  writes:
> >>> There's no need for extents on such a small partition,
> >>> nor journalling (because you write to /boot so
> >>> rarely, the likelihood of a power failure when you're
> >>> doing so is minuscule).
> >> 
> >> Yea, sure, but that's not the point. I just wanted to
> >> use ext4 for everything. Not on this system, but often,
> >> my boot partition is very active, as I copy many kernels
> >> there for many different (arch)machines and different hardware
> >> (HD, SSD, CF, SD...) I try to make the many systems I admin
> >> as homogeneous as possible, hence the switch to ext4
> >> for boot.
> > 
> > Nevertheless, if ext4 isn't working for you you should follow the advice
> > you've been given and format /boot as ext2. All my boot partitions are
> > ext2, regardless of which others are ext4 or reiserfs.
> 
> Same here.  I use ext3 and reiserfs, depending on what it is, but /boot
> is always ext2.  Why, it works well with grub and has for many many
> years and most likely will for many years to come as well.
> 
> As for making things the same, that my not always be a good idea
> either.  I put some things on reiserfs but some on ext3.  It seams each
> file system has its strengths and weaknesses.  I read that portage, with
> a lot of small files, does better on ext* file systems.  So I put
> portage on that.  Most everything else is on reiserfs.

Where did you read that portage, with lots of small files, is best on ext*?
I was under the impression that reiserfs has better performance with lots of 
smaller files.

--
Joost

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: raid1 grub ext4

[Peter Humphrey]

On Tuesday 12 April 2011 15:57:26 Dale wrote:

> As for making things the same, that my not always be a good idea
> either.

I might add a quotation from Ralph Waldo Emerson: "a foolish preoccupation with 
consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds."

-- 
Rgds
Peter

[gentoo-user] Re: raid1 grub ext4

[James]

James <wireless <at> tampabay.rr.com> writes:


> > I've found GRUB's handling of symlinks to be variable at best. Try
> > searching for the real file.

All the files are in /boot/grub:

(chroot) slam grub # ls
default        grub.conf         minix_stage1_5     stage2.old
device.map     grub.conf.bak     reiserfs_stage1_5  stage2_eltorito
e2fs_stage1_5  iso9660_stage1_5  splash.xpm.gz      ufs2_stage1_5
fat_stage1_5   jfs_stage1_5      stage1             vstafs_stage1_5
ffs_stage1_5   menu.lst          stage2             xfs_stage1_5

> Everything I try within grub indicated the filesystem is unknown.
This stumps me....
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=250829
Bug above looks like this grub support of ext4 was
flushed out and fixed some time ago?

> Maybe unmount the boot partition, reformat it to ext2 copy over the kernrel
> (run what mdadm commands again)  remount and see if it works?
 
This is still my best idea, if nobody has any other ideas?


James

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: raid1 grub ext4

[Florian Philipp]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1160 bytes --]

Am 12.04.2011 18:53, schrieb James:
> James <wireless <at> tampabay.rr.com> writes:
> 
>> Everything I try within grub indicated the filesystem is unknown.
> This stumps me....
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=250829
> Bug above looks like this grub support of ext4 was
> flushed out and fixed some time ago?
> 
>> Maybe unmount the boot partition, reformat it to ext2 copy over the kernrel
>> (run what mdadm commands again)  remount and see if it works?
>  
> This is still my best idea, if nobody has any other ideas?
> 
> 
> James
> 

Your boot partition is not by any chance a logical partition and
therefore would be (hd0,4) and not (hd0,0)?

Also: According to this bug [1], grub gained support for md metadata 1.0
in 2010. Maybe this has not yet been merged into Gentoo (or legacy grub,
at all).

You can try to use 0.90 metadata by specifying it while creating the
RAID with mdadm. I'm using it myself because AFAIK this is the only way
for grub to handle a single RAID containing partitions instead of
partitions containing RAIDs.

[1] http://savannah.gnu.org/task/?10196

Hope this helps,
Florian Philipp


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: raid1 grub ext4

[Alex Schuster]

Dale writes:

> Same here.  I use ext3 and reiserfs, depending on what it is, but /boot
> is always ext2.  Why, it works well with grub and has for many many
> years and most likely will for many years to come as well.
> 
> As for making things the same, that my not always be a good idea
> either.  I put some things on reiserfs but some on ext3.  It seams each
> file system has its strengths and weaknesses.  I read that portage, with
> a lot of small files, does better on ext* file systems.  So I put
> portage on that.  Most everything else is on reiserfs.

It's the other way around here - all ext3 except for /boot, but the portage 
tree is on reiserfs. Which is said to be very fast when dealing with lots of 
small files, because files under 4K are stored directly in the inodes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReiserFS#Performance

	Wonko

[gentoo-user] Re: raid1 grub ext4

[James]

Florian Philipp <lists <at> binarywings.net> writes:



> Your boot partition is not by any chance a logical partition and
> therefore would be (hd0,4) and not (hd0,0)?

grub> root (hd0,4)
Error 22: No such partition

No?


> You can try to use 0.90 metadata by specifying it while creating the
> RAID with mdadm. I'm using it myself because AFAIK this is the only way
> for grub to handle a single RAID containing partitions instead of
> partitions containing RAIDs.

OK so I read about this "0.90 metadata" but could not find
details (syntax) of when and exactly how to use this information.
OK, so, I've rebooted and got the md1, md2, md3 renamed by
(whatever) to md125 md127 and md126, respectively. 

I changed the fstab like so:

#/dev/md1   /boot          ext4    noauto,noatime  1 2
#/dev/md3   /              ext4    noatime         0 1
#/dev/md2   swap           swap    defaults        0 0

none        /proc       proc            defaults         0 0
/dev/cdrom  /mnt/cdrom  auto            noauto,rw,user   0 0
shm         /dev/shm    tmpfs      nodev,nosuid,noexec   0 0

/dev/md125  /boot       ext2             noauto,noatime  1 2
/dev/md126  /           ext4             noatime         0 1
/dev/md127  swap        swap             defaults        0 0


I put ext2 on /boot, re-emerged grub, edit the grub.conf,
but when I run grub I still get HD that cannot be found?

grub>  root (hd0,0)
 Filesystem type unknown, partition type 0xfd
grub> root (hd1,0)
 Filesystem type unknown, partition type 0xfd
grub> find /boot/grub/stage1
Error 15: File not found
grub> find /grub/stage1
Error 15: File not found

All the files are in /boot/grub...

ext2 support is built into the kernel, with extended attributes.

ideas? (syntax and steps to repeat after a reboot?)
Its my first software raid on gentoo, so I'm sure I've
mucked things up  a bit....


James

[gentoo-user] Re: raid1 grub ext4

[James]

Florian Philipp <lists <at> binarywings.net> writes:


> You can try to use 0.90 metadata by specifying it while creating the
> RAID with mdadm. I'm using it myself because AFAIK this is the only way
> for grub to handle a single RAID containing partitions instead of
> partitions containing RAIDs.

Not sure what this inconsistency is tell me:


(chroot) livecd grub # cat /proc/mdstat
Personalities : [raid0] [raid1] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [raid10] 
md125 : active raid1 sda1[0] sdb1[1]
      262132 blocks super 1.2 [2/2] [UU]
 
md126 : active raid1 sdb3[1] sda3[0]
      1948226512 blocks super 1.2 [2/2] [UU]
      
md127 : active raid1 sdb2[1] sda2[0]
      5022708 blocks super 1.2 [2/2] [UU]


(chroot) livecd grub # cd /boot/grub/
(chroot) livecd grub # df .
Filesystem            Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/md1              248M  7.5M  228M   4% /boot

So is it md1 or md125 for /boot, which is
on it's own partition?


James

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: raid1 grub ext4

[Florian Philipp]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1335 bytes --]

Am 14.04.2011 14:56, schrieb James:
> Florian Philipp <lists <at> binarywings.net> writes:
> 
> 
> 
>> Your boot partition is not by any chance a logical partition and
>> therefore would be (hd0,4) and not (hd0,0)?
> 
> grub> root (hd0,4)
> Error 22: No such partition
> 
> No?
> 
> 
>> You can try to use 0.90 metadata by specifying it while creating the
>> RAID with mdadm. I'm using it myself because AFAIK this is the only way
>> for grub to handle a single RAID containing partitions instead of
>> partitions containing RAIDs.
> 
> OK so I read about this "0.90 metadata" but could not find
> details (syntax) of when and exactly how to use this information.
> OK, so, I've rebooted and got the md1, md2, md3 renamed by
> (whatever) to md125 md127 and md126, respectively. 
> 

The parameter for specifying metadata versions is -e. Try
mdadm --create --metadata=0.90 ...

Of course it can only be specified while creating the array.

The renaming is pretty ugly. You can force specific names by
circumventing the kernel autodetection. Add the following kernel parameters:
raid=noautodetect md=0,/dev/sda1,/dev/sdb1 ...

This assembles md0 with sda1 and sdb1. You can also try to keep
autodetection on and only force the numbering for your raid partition.

Hope this helps,
Florian Philipp


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: raid1 grub ext4

[James]

James <wireless <at> tampabay.rr.com> writes:


> Not sure what this inconsistency is tell me:


I rebooted, using a minimal CD. Dmesg has this information:

md: bind<sda1>
md: bind<sdb3>
md: bind<sda2>
md: bind<sda3>
md/raid1:md126: active with 2 out of 2 mirrors
md126: detected capacity change from 0 to 1994983948288
md: bind<sdb1>
 md126: unknown partition table
md: bind<sdb2>
md/raid1:md127: active with 2 out of 2 mirrors
md127: detected capacity change from 0 to 268423168
md/raid1:md125: active with 2 out of 2 mirrors
md125: detected capacity change from 0 to 5143252992
 md127: unknown partition table
 md125: unknown partition table


unknown partition tables?

Trying to avoid the 4k disk problems, I used
this to format the drives originally (which) I 
found in a gentoo bug:

livecd ~ # fdisk -c -S 56 -u /dev/sda

Command (m for help): p

Disk /dev/sda: 2000.4 GB, 2000398934016 bytes
255 heads, 56 sectors/track, 273601 cylinders, total 3907029168 sectors
Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
Disk identifier: 0xab83344a

   Device Boot      Start         End      Blocks   Id  System
/dev/sda1   *        2048      526335      262144   fd  Linux raid autodetect
/dev/sda2          526336    10573823     5023744   fd  Linux raid autodetect
/dev/sda3        10573824  3907029167  1948227672   fd  Linux raid autodetect


I think my problem in the partition table is unknown?

If so, what did I miss and how to recover? 

Also, still unsure if my fstab is correct. (see previous post).

when I boot with the minCD all is there after I mount and go
into chroot environment....

Perplexed,
James

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: raid1 grub ext4

[Florian Philipp]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2303 bytes --]

Am 14.04.2011 15:41, schrieb James:
> James <wireless <at> tampabay.rr.com> writes:
> 
> 
>> Not sure what this inconsistency is tell me:
> 
> 
> I rebooted, using a minimal CD. Dmesg has this information:
> 
> md: bind<sda1>
> md: bind<sdb3>
> md: bind<sda2>
> md: bind<sda3>
> md/raid1:md126: active with 2 out of 2 mirrors
> md126: detected capacity change from 0 to 1994983948288
> md: bind<sdb1>
>  md126: unknown partition table
> md: bind<sdb2>
> md/raid1:md127: active with 2 out of 2 mirrors
> md127: detected capacity change from 0 to 268423168
> md/raid1:md125: active with 2 out of 2 mirrors
> md125: detected capacity change from 0 to 5143252992
>  md127: unknown partition table
>  md125: unknown partition table
> 
> 
> unknown partition tables?
> 
> Trying to avoid the 4k disk problems, I used
> this to format the drives originally (which) I 
> found in a gentoo bug:
> 
> livecd ~ # fdisk -c -S 56 -u /dev/sda
> 
> Command (m for help): p
> 
> Disk /dev/sda: 2000.4 GB, 2000398934016 bytes
> 255 heads, 56 sectors/track, 273601 cylinders, total 3907029168 sectors
> Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
> Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
> I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
> Disk identifier: 0xab83344a
> 
>    Device Boot      Start         End      Blocks   Id  System
> /dev/sda1   *        2048      526335      262144   fd  Linux raid autodetect
> /dev/sda2          526336    10573823     5023744   fd  Linux raid autodetect
> /dev/sda3        10573824  3907029167  1948227672   fd  Linux raid autodetect
> 
> 
> I think my problem in the partition table is unknown?
> 
> If so, what did I miss and how to recover? 
> 
> Also, still unsure if my fstab is correct. (see previous post).
> 
> when I boot with the minCD all is there after I mount and go
> into chroot environment....
> 
> Perplexed,
> James
> 
> 

I don't think the missing partition table is your problem. Linux
supports partitions within md devices. You don't use this feature and
therefore there is no partition table within the md devices to be detected.

However, you might be onto something with the changed sector offset. But
I don't know enough of this to help you.

Regards,
Florian Philipp


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: raid1 grub ext4

[Dale]

Hi,

Just picking the last post I read here.  OP.  You may want to read this:

http://grub.enbug.org/LVMandRAID

I know little about LVM and nothing about RAID but found that howto that 
is pretty straight foreword on how it should work.  Also, make sure you 
are using a version of grub that can see RAID/LVM.  According to what I 
read, not all versions can, only the most recent has that "feature".

It also has a grub.conf example too.  Maybe that will help to.

Hope that helps.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: raid1 grub ext4

[Paul Hartman]

On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 7:56 AM, James <wireless@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> OK, so, I've rebooted and got the md1, md2, md3 renamed by
> (whatever) to md125 md127 and md126, respectively.

The name of the array probably got weird because your hostname doesn't
match the homehost of the array. The array has the host name stored in
its metadata, so if you're booting in an environment that doesn't have
the same hostname (such as a live CD) then it'll use different (large)
numbering to avoid a conflict with "local" arrays. It may also cause
some other differences. The manpage of mdadm has good information.

I think you can also set it to ignore the hostname entirely in
mdadm.conf, but I've not personally ever tried that.

[gentoo-user] Re: raid1 grub ext4

[James]

Dale <rdalek1967 <at> gmail.com> writes:


> http://grub.enbug.org/LVMandRAID

Not using lvm at all. Simple raid1
on /boot, /, and swap partitions.

I do not need the added complexity of LVM
on a simple raid array; I perfectly capable
of follow explicit instructions(syntax) and 
still screwing things up, without LVM...

You build a raid1 system yet?  NO lvm   ;-)


Come-on Dale,  I need you to flush this out....

http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-x86+raid+lvm2-quickinstall.xml

http://en.gentoo-wiki.com/wiki/RAID/Software

:-(   


Alligators? I do not see any Gators.....
Come on in, the water is FINE!

James

[gentoo-user] Re: raid1 grub ext4

[James]

Florian Philipp <lists <at> binarywings.net> writes:


> I don't think the missing partition table is your problem.

OK, let's assume you are correct, ignoring .....

> However, you might be onto something with the changed sector offset. But
> I don't know enough of this to help you.

Well if I have to reformat I look everything on the install.
Not ready to start over yet.....
So after a fresh reboot I see:
livecd ~ # cat /proc/mdstat
Personalities : [raid0] [raid1] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [raid10] 
md125 : active (auto-read-only) raid1 sdb3[1] sda3[0]
      1948226512 blocks super 1.2 [2/2] [UU]
md126 : active (auto-read-only) raid1 sda2[0] sdb2[1]
      5022708 blocks super 1.2 [2/2] [UU]
md127 : active (auto-read-only) raid1 sda1[0] sdb1[1]
      262132 blocks super 1.2 [2/2] [UU]

If you look at previous posts of mine on the md<part>
names, and focus on the sized, you'll see something
very troubling...

The minimal CD keeps using the md125-127 names but assigns
them to the different partitions:
NOW
/boot is: md127 : active (auto-read-only) raid1 sda1[0] sdb1[1]
      262132 blocks super 1.2 [2/2] [UU]

/     is md125 : active (auto-read-only) raid1 sdb3[1] sda3[0]
      1948226512 blocks super 1.2 [2/2] [UU]

swap  is md126 : active (auto-read-only) raid1 sda2[0] sdb2[1]
      5022708 blocks super 1.2 [2/2] [UU]

Something is morphing the numbers each time I reboot
with minCD....

So no what I put in /etc/fstab, it's going to be wrong.

grub cannot find the partition with the kernel? OR
is this not a problem? 

Plus, since  I'm never able to write the grub stuffage to the
MBR, grub nor the kernel every run.....

after rebooting I tried this step to correct for the metadata
problem you previously posted about:

mdadm --create /dev/md1 --level=1 --raid-devices=2 --metadata=0.90 /dev/sda1
/dev/sdb1
mdadm: super0.90 cannot open /dev/sda1: Device or resource busy
mdadm: /dev/sda1 is not suitable for this array.
mdadm: super0.90 cannot open /dev/sdb1: Device or resource busy
mdadm: /dev/sdb1 is not suitable for this array.

mdadm --create /dev/md127 --level=1 --raid-devices=2 --metadata=0.90 /dev/sda1
/dev/sdb1
mdadm: super0.90 cannot open /dev/sda1: Device or resource busy
mdadm: /dev/sda1 is not suitable for this array.
mdadm: super0.90 cannot open /dev/sdb1: Device or resource busy
mdadm: /dev/sdb1 is not suitable for this array.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: raid1 grub ext4

[Florian Philipp]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3611 bytes --]

Am 14.04.2011 17:07, schrieb James:
> Florian Philipp <lists <at> binarywings.net> writes:
> 
> 
>> I don't think the missing partition table is your problem.
> 
> OK, let's assume you are correct, ignoring .....
> 
>> However, you might be onto something with the changed sector offset. But
>> I don't know enough of this to help you.
> 
> Well if I have to reformat I look everything on the install.
> Not ready to start over yet.....
> So after a fresh reboot I see:
> livecd ~ # cat /proc/mdstat
> Personalities : [raid0] [raid1] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [raid10] 
> md125 : active (auto-read-only) raid1 sdb3[1] sda3[0]
>       1948226512 blocks super 1.2 [2/2] [UU]
> md126 : active (auto-read-only) raid1 sda2[0] sdb2[1]
>       5022708 blocks super 1.2 [2/2] [UU]
> md127 : active (auto-read-only) raid1 sda1[0] sdb1[1]
>       262132 blocks super 1.2 [2/2] [UU]
> 
> If you look at previous posts of mine on the md<part>
> names, and focus on the sized, you'll see something
> very troubling...
> 
> The minimal CD keeps using the md125-127 names but assigns
> them to the different partitions:
> NOW
> /boot is: md127 : active (auto-read-only) raid1 sda1[0] sdb1[1]
>       262132 blocks super 1.2 [2/2] [UU]
> 
> /     is md125 : active (auto-read-only) raid1 sdb3[1] sda3[0]
>       1948226512 blocks super 1.2 [2/2] [UU]
> 
> swap  is md126 : active (auto-read-only) raid1 sda2[0] sdb2[1]
>       5022708 blocks super 1.2 [2/2] [UU]
> 
> Something is morphing the numbers each time I reboot
> with minCD....
> 
> So no what I put in /etc/fstab, it's going to be wrong.
> 

I guess you can resort to labels or UUIDs. The real problem is the
root=... parameter for the kernel. That's why I suggested overriding the
auto detection and define the raids explicitly on the kernel parameter list.

> grub cannot find the partition with the kernel? OR
> is this not a problem? 
> 

Wild guess: Does grub maybe rely on the partition type to identify file
system? Does it work if you change the type from 0xfd to standard 0x82?

> Plus, since  I'm never able to write the grub stuffage to the
> MBR, grub nor the kernel every run.....
> 

As a workaround to get your system into a usable state, you can still
try to put /boot on a USB stick.

In the past, I've also had a system where grub (whole /boot except
kernel) was located on a floppy and then located the kernel file on the
HDD. You could try this in order to find out whether an working grub
still has trouble with your file system.

> after rebooting I tried this step to correct for the metadata
> problem you previously posted about:
> 
> mdadm --create /dev/md1 --level=1 --raid-devices=2 --metadata=0.90 /dev/sda1
> /dev/sdb1
> mdadm: super0.90 cannot open /dev/sda1: Device or resource busy
> mdadm: /dev/sda1 is not suitable for this array.
> mdadm: super0.90 cannot open /dev/sdb1: Device or resource busy
> mdadm: /dev/sdb1 is not suitable for this array.
> 
> mdadm --create /dev/md127 --level=1 --raid-devices=2 --metadata=0.90 /dev/sda1
> /dev/sdb1
> mdadm: super0.90 cannot open /dev/sda1: Device or resource busy
> mdadm: /dev/sda1 is not suitable for this array.
> mdadm: super0.90 cannot open /dev/sdb1: Device or resource busy
> mdadm: /dev/sdb1 is not suitable for this array.
> 

Are you sure sda1 and sdb1 are not in use? Did the kernel activate the
already present RAID? Then you have to deactivate it. Use
mdadm --stop /dev/md*

Additionally, check that you did not mount sda1 or sdb1 by accident.

Hope this helps,
Florian Philipp


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: raid1 grub ext4

[Dale]

James wrote:
> Dale<rdalek1967<at>  gmail.com>  writes:
>
>
>    
>> http://grub.enbug.org/LVMandRAID
>>      
> Not using lvm at all. Simple raid1
> on /boot, /, and swap partitions.
>
> I do not need the added complexity of LVM
> on a simple raid array; I perfectly capable
> of follow explicit instructions(syntax) and
> still screwing things up, without LVM...
>
> You build a raid1 system yet?  NO lvm   ;-)
>
>
> Come-on Dale,  I need you to flush this out....
>
> http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-x86+raid+lvm2-quickinstall.xml
>
> http://en.gentoo-wiki.com/wiki/RAID/Software
>
> :-(
>
>
> Alligators? I do not see any Gators.....
> Come on in, the water is FINE!
>
> James
>
>    

That talks about using RAID tho.  I don't think you have to be using LVM 
to use that guide.  It just talks about both in one place.

Maybe I don't know enough to see that it requires both tho.  lol

Dale

:-)  :-)

[gentoo-user] Re: raid1 grub ext4

[James]

Florian Philipp <lists <at> binarywings.net> writes:

> Are you sure sda1 and sdb1 are not in use? Did the kernel activate the
> already present RAID? Then you have to deactivate it. Use
> mdadm --stop /dev/md*

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHh!

livecd ~ # mdadm --stop /dev/md*
mdadm: error opening /dev/md: Is a directory
mdadm: stopped /dev/md1
mdadm: stopped /dev/md125
mdadm: stopped /dev/md126
mdadm: stopped /dev/md127
mdadm: stopped /dev/md3
mdadm: stopped /dev/md4


So it has 2 sets of md ?

mdadm --create /dev/md127 --level=1 --raid-devices=2 --metadata=0.90 /dev/sda1
/dev/sdb1
mdadm: /dev/sda1 appears to be part of a raid array:
    level=raid1 devices=2 ctime=Sun Apr 10 17:12:42 2011
mdadm: /dev/sdb1 appears to be part of a raid array:
    level=raid1 devices=2 ctime=Sun Apr 10 17:12:42 2011
Continue creating array? y
mdadm: array /dev/md127 started.


What next?


James

[gentoo-user] Re: raid1 grub ext4

[James]

Dale <rdalek1967 <at> gmail.com> writes:


> > http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-x86+raid+lvm2-quickinstall.xml

> > http://en.gentoo-wiki.com/wiki/RAID/Software

> That talks about using RAID tho.  I don't think you have to be using LVM 
> to use that guide.  It just talks about both in one place.

Correct, 
if my research-comprehension is properly aligned....

> Maybe I don't know enough to see that it requires both tho.  lol

Nope, lvm is extra. ONCE you master lvm, I'll dive in with
both feet!
For now, no lvm as my needs are simple mirroring of all 3 partions.
boot and swap are plenty big, everything else is /
So this should be straight forward....

I think Florian is bout to help me flesh out the problem,
on the other thread....


James

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: raid1 grub ext4

[Florian Philipp]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1229 bytes --]

Am 14.04.2011 18:29, schrieb James:
> Florian Philipp <lists <at> binarywings.net> writes:
> 
>> Are you sure sda1 and sdb1 are not in use? Did the kernel activate the
>> already present RAID? Then you have to deactivate it. Use
>> mdadm --stop /dev/md*
> 
> AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHh!
> 
> livecd ~ # mdadm --stop /dev/md*
> mdadm: error opening /dev/md: Is a directory
> mdadm: stopped /dev/md1
> mdadm: stopped /dev/md125
> mdadm: stopped /dev/md126
> mdadm: stopped /dev/md127
> mdadm: stopped /dev/md3
> mdadm: stopped /dev/md4
> 
> 
> So it has 2 sets of md ?
>

*Head scratch* This, uhm, looks odd. No clue what to make of it.


> mdadm --create /dev/md127 --level=1 --raid-devices=2 --metadata=0.90 /dev/sda1
> /dev/sdb1
> mdadm: /dev/sda1 appears to be part of a raid array:
>     level=raid1 devices=2 ctime=Sun Apr 10 17:12:42 2011
> mdadm: /dev/sdb1 appears to be part of a raid array:
>     level=raid1 devices=2 ctime=Sun Apr 10 17:12:42 2011
> Continue creating array? y
> mdadm: array /dev/md127 started.
> 
> 
> What next?
> 

Guess you also have to remove them from the old array:
mdadm /dev/md0 --remove /dev/sda1
You can also try --force.

Regards,
Florian Philipp


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: raid1 grub ext4

[James]

> *Head scratch* This, uhm, looks odd. No clue what to make of it.

Ahhh,

Don't give up just yet?

I issued these commands:

mdadm --create /dev/md127 --level=1 --raid-devices=2
 --metadata=0.90 /dev/sda1 /dev/sdb1

mdadm --create /dev/md125 --level=1 --raid-devices=2 
--metadata=0.90 /dev/sda3 /dev/sdb3
mdadm: /dev/sda3 appears to be part of a raid array:
    level=raid1 devices=2 ctime=Thu Apr 14 13:22:32 2011
mdadm: /dev/sdb3 appears to be part of a raid array:
    level=raid1 devices=2 ctime=Thu Apr 14 13:22:32 2011
Continue creating array? y


 mdadm --create /dev/md126 --level=1 --raid-devices=2 
--metadata=0.90 /dev/sda2 /dev/sdb2

I'm not sure if I just wiped the drives clean (empty)?

If so, I'll have to start over.....?

mdadm  --detail /dev/md1  
mdadm: cannot open /dev/md1: No such file or directory

same now for md2 and md3...

Look (ma no hands!):

livecd gentoo # mdadm --detail /dev/md125
/dev/md125:
        Version : 0.90
  Creation Time : Thu Apr 14 14:15:21 2011
     Raid Level : raid1
     Array Size : 1948227584 (1857.97 GiB 1994.99 GB)
  Used Dev Size : 1948227584 (1857.97 GiB 1994.99 GB)
   Raid Devices : 2
  Total Devices : 2
Preferred Minor : 125
    Persistence : Superblock is persistent

    Update Time : Thu Apr 14 15:51:46 2011
          State : clean, resyncing
 Active Devices : 2
Working Devices : 2
 Failed Devices : 0
  Spare Devices : 0

 Rebuild Status : 37% complete

           UUID : fa800cdb:33955cfd:cb201669:f728008a (local to host livecd)
         Events : 0.6

    Number   Major   Minor   RaidDevice State
       0       8        3        0      active sync   /dev/sda3
       1       8       19        1      active sync   /dev/sdb3


 mdadm  --detail /dev/md126  
/dev/md126:
        Version : 0.90
  Creation Time : Thu Apr 14 14:16:01 2011
     Raid Level : raid1
     Array Size : 5023680 (4.79 GiB 5.14 GB)
  Used Dev Size : 5023680 (4.79 GiB 5.14 GB)
   Raid Devices : 2
  Total Devices : 2
Preferred Minor : 126
    Persistence : Superblock is persistent

    Update Time : Thu Apr 14 14:16:01 2011
          State : clean
 Active Devices : 2
Working Devices : 2
 Failed Devices : 0
  Spare Devices : 0

           UUID : e4651ca8:4aae2908:cb201669:f728008a (local to host livecd)
         Events : 0.1

    Number   Major   Minor   RaidDevice State
       0       8        2        0      active sync   /dev/sda2
       1       8       18        1      active sync   /dev/sdb2


# mdadm  --detail /dev/md127
/dev/md127:
        Version : 0.90
  Creation Time : Thu Apr 14 14:10:56 2011
     Raid Level : raid1
     Array Size : 262080 (255.98 MiB 268.37 MB)
  Used Dev Size : 262080 (255.98 MiB 268.37 MB)
   Raid Devices : 2
  Total Devices : 2
Preferred Minor : 127
    Persistence : Superblock is persistent

    Update Time : Thu Apr 14 16:12:41 2011
          State : clean
 Active Devices : 2
Working Devices : 2
 Failed Devices : 0
  Spare Devices : 0

           UUID : 8939604f:676aa8df:cb201669:f728008a (local to host livecd)
         Events : 0.18

    Number   Major   Minor   RaidDevice State
       0       8        1        0      active sync   /dev/sda1
       1       8       17        1      active sync   /dev/sdb1


We'll see in a few hours....


James

[gentoo-user] Re: raid1 grub ext4

[James]

Florian Philipp <lists <at> binarywings.net> writes:


> > livecd ~ # mdadm --stop /dev/md*
> > mdadm: error opening /dev/md: Is a directory
> > mdadm: stopped /dev/md1
> > mdadm: stopped /dev/md125
> > mdadm: stopped /dev/md126
> > mdadm: stopped /dev/md127
> > mdadm: stopped /dev/md3
> > mdadm: stopped /dev/md4

From this web page:
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-x86+raid+lvm2-quickinstall.xml


possibly?


Code Listing 2.10: Create device nodes and devices

livecd ~ # mknod /dev/md1 b 9 1
livecd ~ # mknod /dev/md3 b 9 3
livecd ~ # mknod /dev/md4 b 9 4

livecd ~ # mdadm --create /dev/md1 --level=1 --raid-devices=2 --metadata=0.90
/dev/sda1 /dev/sdb1
mdadm: array /dev/md1 started.
livecd ~ # mdadm --create /dev/md3 --level=1 --raid-devices=2 /dev/sda3 /dev/sdb3
mdadm: array /dev/md3 started.
livecd ~ # mdadm --create /dev/md4 --level=0 --raid-devices=2 /dev/sda4 /dev/sdb4
mdadm: array /dev/md4 started.

Not exactly what I did, as the (omitted forth partition
and only used raid 1) but it does not align with the md125-md127
numbers, but all are present.....

Comments and suggestions are most welcome!

James

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: raid1 grub ext4

[Florian Philipp]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2676 bytes --]

Am 14.04.2011 22:19, schrieb James:
> 
>> *Head scratch* This, uhm, looks odd. No clue what to make of it.
> 
> Ahhh,
> 
> Don't give up just yet?
> 
> I issued these commands:
> 
> mdadm --create /dev/md127 --level=1 --raid-devices=2
>  --metadata=0.90 /dev/sda1 /dev/sdb1
> 
> mdadm --create /dev/md125 --level=1 --raid-devices=2 
> --metadata=0.90 /dev/sda3 /dev/sdb3
> mdadm: /dev/sda3 appears to be part of a raid array:
>     level=raid1 devices=2 ctime=Thu Apr 14 13:22:32 2011
> mdadm: /dev/sdb3 appears to be part of a raid array:
>     level=raid1 devices=2 ctime=Thu Apr 14 13:22:32 2011
> Continue creating array? y
> 
> 
>  mdadm --create /dev/md126 --level=1 --raid-devices=2 
> --metadata=0.90 /dev/sda2 /dev/sdb2
> 
> I'm not sure if I just wiped the drives clean (empty)?
> 
> If so, I'll have to start over.....?
> 

Ouch, I didn't think of that. Well, I guess it will not wipe it, it will
merely re-sync the disks. Since they have been mirrors of each other
before this action, you might be lucky and it keeps working.

> mdadm  --detail /dev/md1  
> mdadm: cannot open /dev/md1: No such file or directory
> 
> same now for md2 and md3...
> 

Well, at least you are rid of the duplicate arrays.

> Look (ma no hands!):
> 
> livecd gentoo # mdadm --detail /dev/md125
> /dev/md125:
>         Version : 0.90
>   Creation Time : Thu Apr 14 14:15:21 2011
>      Raid Level : raid1
>      Array Size : 1948227584 (1857.97 GiB 1994.99 GB)
>   Used Dev Size : 1948227584 (1857.97 GiB 1994.99 GB)
>    Raid Devices : 2
>   Total Devices : 2
> Preferred Minor : 125
>     Persistence : Superblock is persistent
> 
>     Update Time : Thu Apr 14 15:51:46 2011
>           State : clean, resyncing
>  Active Devices : 2
> Working Devices : 2
>  Failed Devices : 0
>   Spare Devices : 0
> 
>  Rebuild Status : 37% complete
> 
>            UUID : fa800cdb:33955cfd:cb201669:f728008a (local to host livecd)
>          Events : 0.6
> 
>     Number   Major   Minor   RaidDevice State
>        0       8        3        0      active sync   /dev/sda3
>        1       8       19        1      active sync   /dev/sdb3
> 
> 
[...]
> We'll see in a few hours....
> 
> 
> James
> 

You can keep using it while it re-syncs. Re-syncing just means that you
do not have any redundancy, yet. You can still read/write on the array.
You will get or manipulate whatever mdadm thinks is the correct value
for each block. That's also what will end up on both disks, ultimately.
I guess you can even reboot but since your setup is not really
persistent, I wouldn't try it.

Regards,
Florian Philipp


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]