On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 8:39 PM, Kristleifur Daðason
[off-list ref] wrote:

On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 4:10 AM, Michael Evans [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Kristleifur Daðason
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hi all,

I wish to convert my 3-drive RAID-5 array to a 6-drive RAID-6. I'm on
Linux 2.6.32.2 and have mdadm version 3.1.1 with the 32-bit-array-size
patch from here: http://osdir.com/ml/linux-raid/2009-11/msg00534.html

I have three live drives and three spares added to the array. When I
initialize the command, mdadm does the initial checks and aborts with
a "cannot set device shape" without doing anything to the array.

Following are some md stats and growth command output:

___

$ cat /proc/mdstat
Personalities : [linear] [multipath] [raid0] [raid1] [raid6] [raid5]
[raid4] [raid10]
md_d1 : active raid5 sdd1[6](S) sdc1[5](S) sdb1[4](S) sdf1[1] sde1[0] sdl1[3]
      2930078720 blocks super 1.1 level 5, 256k chunk, algorithm 2 [3/3] [UUU]
      bitmap: 1/350 pages [4KB], 2048KB chunk

$ mdadm --detail --scan
ARRAY /dev/md/d1 metadata=1.01 spares=3 name=mamma:d1
UUID=da547022:042a6f68:d5fe251e:5e89f263

$ mdadm --grow /dev/md_d1 --level=6 --raid-devices=6
--backup-file=/root/backup.md1_to_r6
mdadm: metadata format 1.10 unknown, ignored.
mdadm: metadata format 1.10 unknown, ignored.
mdadm level of /dev/md_d1 changed to raid6
mdadm: Need to backup 1024K of critical section..
mdadm: Cannot set device shape for /dev/md_d1
mdadm: aborting level change
___


Three questions -

1. What does the stuff about "metadata format 1.10 unknown" mean?
Notice the "super 1.1" vs. "metadata 1.01" vs. "metadata format 1.10"
disrepancy between mdsat, --detail and --grow output.

2. Am I doing something wrong? :)

3. How can I get more info about what is causing the failure to
initialize the growth?

Thanks!

-- Kristleifur


(P.s., I'm cc-ing this directly to Neil Brown as the maintainer of
mdadm. I hope that isn't rude of me.)
--

I thought there were three metadata variants for 1.x: 1.0 1.1 and 1.2
 Maybe the extra 1 or 0 at the end refers to a reshape in progress?

Thanks for the reply. FWIW, I intended the array to have metadata
format 1.1 when I created it. I've noticed these "1.01" messages
before, so I believe it's not due to the reshape. However, I'm
thinking the funny metadata might be interfering with the reshape
somehow.

Hmm ...

This is odd; cat /proc/mdstat shows 1.0 and 1.1 for my metadata
formats; however using --detail --scan  I _DO_ see 1.00 and 1.01 on my
system.
--
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