On Thursday July 30, jnelson-linux-raid@jamponi.net wrote:
I saw this, which just *can't* be right:
md12 : active raid1 nbd0[2](W) sde[0]
72612988 blocks super 1.1 [3/1] [U__]
[======================================>] recovery =192.7%
(69979200/36306494) finish=13228593199978.6min speed=11620K/sec
bitmap: 139/139 pages [556KB], 256KB chunk
Certainly very strange. I cannot explain it at all.
Please report exactly what kernel version you were running, all kernel
log messages from before the first resync completed until after the
sync-to-200% completed.
Hopefully there will be a clue somewhere in there.
Thanks,
NeilBrown
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 1:21 AM, Neil Brown[off-list ref] wrote:
On Thursday July 30, jnelson-linux-raid@jamponi.net wrote:
quoted
I saw this, which just *can't* be right:
md12 : active raid1 nbd0[2](W) sde[0]
72612988 blocks super 1.1 [3/1] [U__]
[======================================>] recovery =192.7%
(69979200/36306494) finish=13228593199978.6min speed=11620K/sec
bitmap: 139/139 pages [556KB], 256KB chunk
Certainly very strange. I cannot explain it at all.
Please report exactly what kernel version you were running, all kernel
log messages from before the first resync completed until after the
sync-to-200% completed.
Hopefully there will be a clue somewhere in there.
Stock openSUSE 2.6.27.25-0.1-default on x86_64.
I'm pretty sure this is it:
Jul 30 13:51:01 turnip kernel: md: bind<nbd0>
Jul 30 13:51:01 turnip kernel: RAID1 conf printout:
Jul 30 13:51:01 turnip kernel: --- wd:1 rd:3
Jul 30 13:51:01 turnip kernel: disk 0, wo:0, o:1, dev:sde
Jul 30 13:51:01 turnip kernel: disk 1, wo:1, o:1, dev:nbd0
Jul 30 13:51:01 turnip kernel: md: recovery of RAID array md12
Jul 30 13:51:01 turnip kernel: md: minimum _guaranteed_ speed: 1000
KB/sec/disk.
Jul 30 13:51:01 turnip kernel: md: using maximum available idle IO
bandwidth (but not more than 200000 KB/sec) for recovery.
Jul 30 13:51:01 turnip kernel: md: using 128k window, over a total of
72612988 blocks.
Jul 30 14:10:48 turnip kernel: md: md12: recovery done.
Jul 30 14:10:49 turnip kernel: RAID1 conf printout:
Jul 30 14:10:49 turnip kernel: --- wd:2 rd:3
Jul 30 14:10:49 turnip kernel: disk 0, wo:0, o:1, dev:sde
Jul 30 14:10:49 turnip kernel: disk 1, wo:0, o:1, dev:nbd0
--
Jon
--
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
On Thu, August 6, 2009 11:02 pm, Jon Nelson wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 1:21 AM, Neil Brown[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Thursday July 30, jnelson-linux-raid@jamponi.net wrote:
quoted
I saw this, which just *can't* be right:
md12 : active raid1 nbd0[2](W) sde[0]
72612988 blocks super 1.1 [3/1] [U__]
[======================================>] recovery =192.7%
(69979200/36306494) finish=13228593199978.6min speed=11620K/sec
bitmap: 139/139 pages [556KB], 256KB chunk
Certainly very strange. I cannot explain it at all.
Please report exactly what kernel version you were running, all kernel
log messages from before the first resync completed until after the
sync-to-200% completed.
Hopefully there will be a clue somewhere in there.
Stock openSUSE 2.6.27.25-0.1-default on x86_64.
Ok, so it was probably broken by whoever maintain md for
SuSE.... oh wait, that's me :-)
I'm pretty sure this is it:
Jul 30 13:51:01 turnip kernel: md: bind<nbd0>
Jul 30 13:51:01 turnip kernel: RAID1 conf printout:
Jul 30 13:51:01 turnip kernel: --- wd:1 rd:3
Jul 30 13:51:01 turnip kernel: disk 0, wo:0, o:1, dev:sde
Jul 30 13:51:01 turnip kernel: disk 1, wo:1, o:1, dev:nbd0
Jul 30 13:51:01 turnip kernel: md: recovery of RAID array md12
Jul 30 13:51:01 turnip kernel: md: minimum _guaranteed_ speed: 1000
KB/sec/disk.
Jul 30 13:51:01 turnip kernel: md: using maximum available idle IO
bandwidth (but not more than 200000 KB/sec) for recovery.
Jul 30 13:51:01 turnip kernel: md: using 128k window, over a total of
72612988 blocks.
Jul 30 14:10:48 turnip kernel: md: md12: recovery done.
Jul 30 14:10:49 turnip kernel: RAID1 conf printout:
Jul 30 14:10:49 turnip kernel: --- wd:2 rd:3
Jul 30 14:10:49 turnip kernel: disk 0, wo:0, o:1, dev:sde
Jul 30 14:10:49 turnip kernel: disk 1, wo:0, o:1, dev:nbd0
Thanks...
So:
- when the recovery started, mddev->size was twice of half of the value
printed for "over a total of...", so 72612988 (I assume this is
expected to be a 72 Gig array).
Twice this will have been stored in 'max_sectors' and the loop in
md_do_sync will have taken 'j' up to that value and periodically
stored in in mddev->curr_resync
- When you ran "cat /proc/mdstat", mddev->array_sectors will have been
twice the value printed at "... blocks", which is the same,
145225976
- When you ran "cat /proc/mdstat", it printed "recovery", not "resync",
so MD_RECOVERY_SYNC was not set, so max_sectors was set to
mddev->size... that looks wrong (size is in KB)
Half of this is printed in the second number in
the (%d/%d) bit, so ->size was twice 36306494 or
72612988, which is consistent.
So the problem is that in resync_status, max_sectors is being set to
mddev->size rather than mddev->size*2. This is purely a cosmetic problem,
it do not affect data safety at all.
It looks like I botched a backport of
commit dd71cf6b2773310b01c6fe6c773064c80fd2476b
into the Suse kernel. I'll get that fixed for the next update.
Thanks for the report, and as I said, the only thing affected here
is the content of /proc/mdstat. The recovery is doing the right
thing.
Thanks,
NeilBrown
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 8:47 PM, NeilBrown[off-list ref] wrote:
...
So the problem is that in resync_status, max_sectors is being set to
mddev->size rather than mddev->size*2. This is purely a cosmetic problem,
it do not affect data safety at all.
It looks like I botched a backport of
commit dd71cf6b2773310b01c6fe6c773064c80fd2476b
into the Suse kernel. I'll get that fixed for the next update.
Thanks for the report, and as I said, the only thing affected here
is the content of /proc/mdstat. The recovery is doing the right
thing.
Sweet! Open Source is AWESOME.
--
Jon
--
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
On 07/08/2009 03:17, Jon Nelson wrote:
Sweet! Open Source is AWESOME.
Amen to that, brother Jon!