also sprach Danny ter Haar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.05.27.1020 +0200]:
> Are you sure ?
> As stated, i maintain several machines and i found at least _2_ where
> mdadm.conf was gone.
With only the information you provide, it it impossible for me to
decide if this is a problem.
The *only* thing
Quoting martin f krafft ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Certainly not, but are you sure that the arrays weren't degraded
> beforehand?
Hmm.. machine rebooted on the 23th..
from kern.log:
May 23 05:50:24 localhost kernel: devfs_mk_dev: could not append to parent for
md/0
May 23 05:50:24 localhost kernel:
also sprach Danny ter Haar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.05.27.0726 +0200]:
> > This is ugly, but only aestethically speaking.
>
> so only a warning !?
Yes.
> *i* don't think it's normal that dist upgrade suddenly kicks half the
> disks offline, or am i missing something ?!
Certainly not, but are y
Quoting martin f krafft ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> This is ugly, but only aestethically speaking.
so only a warning !?
> You setup looks weird. mdadm.conf contains /dev/md0 and you are
> already using /dev/md/d0p6 (partitionable arrays).
How about this one:
usenetgateway (amd64 with scsi controller
also sprach Danny ter Haar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.05.25.0737 +0200]:
> Setting up mdadm (1.9.0-3) ...
> Starting raid devices: mdadm: failed to add /dev/sdb to /dev/md0: Device or
> resource busy
> mdadm: failed to add /dev/sda to /dev/md0: Device or resource busy
> mdadm: /dev/md0 assembled fr
On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 07:37:22AM +0200, Danny ter Haar wrote:
> Quoting Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > Can you tell us what version of mdadm you had installed prior to this?
> I just upgraded my machine and this happened:
> Preparing to replace mdadm 1.9.0-2.3 (using .../mdadm_1.9.0-3_
Quoting Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Can you tell us what version of mdadm you had installed prior to this?
I just upgraded my machine and this happened:
Preparing to replace mdadm 1.9.0-2.3 (using .../mdadm_1.9.0-3_i386.deb) ...
Stopping RAID monitor daemon: mdadm -F.
Unpacking replacem
Quoting Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> tags 310368 = moreinfo unreproducible
> severity 310368 important
> thanks
>
> I've verified that there is no code path in this package that would cause
> /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf to be removed on upgrade, so I don't really see how
> this can be the packa
Quoting Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Can you tell us what version of mdadm you had installed prior to this?
nope, sorry
it's a pitty that apt/dpkg doesn't write this info to a log file !
I couldn't scroll back for enough!
--
4 questions of life: What is sacred? What is the spirit mad
tags 310368 = moreinfo unreproducible
severity 310368 important
thanks
Danny,
On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 10:03:09AM +0200, dth wrote:
> running debian unstable apt-get dist-upgrade:
> Setting up mdadm (1.9.0-2.3) ...
> Installing new version of config file /etc/init.d/mdadm-raid ...
> update-rc.d:
Danny,
On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 10:03:09AM +0200, dth wrote:
> Package: mdadm
> Version: 1.9.0-2.3
> Severity: critical
> Tags: experimental
> Justification: breaks the whole system
> running debian unstable apt-get dist-upgrade:
> Setting up mdadm (1.9.0-2.3) ...
> Installing new version of conf
Package: mdadm
Version: 1.9.0-2.3
Severity: critical
Tags: experimental
Justification: breaks the whole system
running debian unstable apt-get dist-upgrade:
Setting up mdadm (1.9.0-2.3) ...
Installing new version of config file /etc/init.d/mdadm-raid ...
update-rc.d: /etc/init.d/mdadm-raid exists
12 matches
Mail list logo
