Bug#396582: Some additional info

2006-11-06 Thread Neil Brown
On Thursday November 2, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Neil, can we apply the patch contributed to fix this: > > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi/mdadm-fix-infinite-loop.diff?bug=396582;msg=5;att=1 > > or do I remember that you previously replaced devlist with NULL to > fix anothe

Bug#396582: Some additional info

2006-11-04 Thread Dan Pascu
martin f krafft wrote: also sprach Dan Pascu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.11.03.2238 +0100]: But I'm glad you were able to at least see the problem I'm experiencing. One thing that intrigues me is why in my case when failing a drive and stopping the array, after restarting it, the failed drive w

Bug#396582: Some additional info

2006-11-04 Thread martin f krafft
also sprach Dan Pascu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.11.03.2238 +0100]: > But I'm glad you were able to at least see the problem I'm > experiencing. One thing that intrigues me is why in my case when > failing a drive and stopping the array, after restarting it, the > failed drive was already removed (e

Bug#396582: Some additional info

2006-11-03 Thread Dan Pascu
martin f krafft wrote: also sprach Dan Pascu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.11.02.0946 +0100]: Yes. In my case, if I fail a drive, it is still there in a failed state, but if I then stop the raid array, when it's restarted, the failed drive is no longer there, as if it was removed mea

Bug#396582: Some additional info

2006-11-02 Thread martin f krafft
tags 396582 - unreproducible thanks also sprach Dan Pascu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.11.02.0946 +0100]: > Yes. In my case, if I fail a drive, it is still there in a failed state, > but if I then stop the raid array, when it's restarted, the failed drive > is no longer there, as if it was removed

Bug#396582: Some additional info

2006-11-02 Thread Dan Pascu
On Thursday 02 November 2006 10:28, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Dan Pascu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.11.01.2323 +0100]: > > Also I've noticed something weird in the test you did. After failing > > sde1 from md99 and stopping the array, when it was started with the > > startup script it said

Bug#396582: Some additional info

2006-11-02 Thread martin f krafft
also sprach Dan Pascu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.11.01.2323 +0100]: > Also I've noticed something weird in the test you did. After failing sde1 > from md99 and stopping the array, when it was started with the startup > script it said it assembled md99 with 2 drives. The same was said by > mdadm -