FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Ubuntu > Ubuntu Server Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 08-23-2008, 09:19 PM
Michael Hipp
 
Default 8.04-1 won't boot from degraded raid

I just loaded a small LAN server with 8.04-1 server. It has two identical disks
in a RAID1 configuration. Works great as long as both disks are online. But if
I disconnect either disk it drops into a BusyBox shell and tells me that my
RAID is degraded and I can boot from it if only I will type mdadm -R /dev/md0.
But that command does nothing toward getting it to boot.

Why is it doing this? Can I somehow make this thing boot automatically even if
degraded?

(If I didn't want it to boot anyways I wouldn't have installed RAID.)

Michael


--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
 
Old 08-24-2008, 12:32 AM
Nick Barcet
 
Default 8.04-1 won't boot from degraded raid

Michael Hipp wrote:
> I just loaded a small LAN server with 8.04-1 server. It has two identical disks
> in a RAID1 configuration. Works great as long as both disks are online. But if
> I disconnect either disk it drops into a BusyBox shell and tells me that my
> RAID is degraded and I can boot from it if only I will type mdadm -R /dev/md0.
> But that command does nothing toward getting it to boot.
>
> Why is it doing this? Can I somehow make this thing boot automatically even if
> degraded?

Hello Michael,

Thanks for reporting your concerns about this. Fortunately, this is
currently being addressed and you'll be able to read a bit more about on
Dustin's blog at [1], as he is currently finalizing a solution for intrepid.

Please feel free to try it out and report any issues or suggestions you
may have.

[1]
http://dustinkirkland.wordpress.com/2008/08/05/booting-degraded-raid-in-ubuntu-intrepid/

Nick

--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
 
Old 08-25-2008, 01:53 PM
Michael Hipp
 
Default 8.04-1 won't boot from degraded raid

Nick Barcet wrote:
> Michael Hipp wrote:
>> I just loaded a small LAN server with 8.04-1 server. It has two identical disks
>> in a RAID1 configuration. Works great as long as both disks are online. But if
>> I disconnect either disk it drops into a BusyBox shell and tells me that my
>> RAID is degraded and I can boot from it if only I will type mdadm -R /dev/md0.
>> But that command does nothing toward getting it to boot.
>>
>> Why is it doing this? Can I somehow make this thing boot automatically even if
>> degraded?
>
> Hello Michael,
>
> Thanks for reporting your concerns about this. Fortunately, this is
> currently being addressed and you'll be able to read a bit more about on
> Dustin's blog at [1], as he is currently finalizing a solution for intrepid.
>
> Please feel free to try it out and report any issues or suggestions you
> may have.
>
> [1]
> http://dustinkirkland.wordpress.com/2008/08/05/booting-degraded-raid-in-ubuntu-intrepid/

Well I tried both the fixes in that blog post and neither of them work. It just
drops into the BusyBox shell. No apparent behavior change.

Does someone know of a fix that works?

But I've run out of time to debug this problem I'm going to have to deliver
this server in a broken state and with a RAID that isn't.

Thanks,
Michael

--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
 
Old 08-25-2008, 08:09 PM
"Dustin Kirkland"
 
Default 8.04-1 won't boot from degraded raid

Michael-

I have been working on this very extensively recently. Is there any
chance you can check if the cd images for Intrepid do what you want
them to do?

I'm on vacation at the moment but had the opportunity to check my
email and saw your note.

If you check at least test the daily Intrepid image
(cdimage.ubuntu.com), and let me know whether it's working or not, I'd
be much obliged.

:-Dustin

--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
 
Old 08-25-2008, 08:22 PM
Michael Hipp
 
Default 8.04-1 won't boot from degraded raid

Dustin Kirkland wrote:
> Michael-
>
> I have been working on this very extensively recently. Is there any
> chance you can check if the cd images for Intrepid do what you want
> them to do?
>
> I'm on vacation at the moment but had the opportunity to check my
> email and saw your note.
>
> If you check at least test the daily Intrepid image
> (cdimage.ubuntu.com), and let me know whether it's working or not, I'd
> be much obliged.

I can't test it right now. I had to deliver that system back to the client
whose patience had worn thin. (And I will lay awake tonight hoping that both
disks continue to function perfectly.)

I may try to cobble together a test system to try it out on.

But in the meantime ... this is Intrepid. What do I do about the "production"
Hardy that I is now known to ship with a broken RAID implementation?

Thanks,
Michael

--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
 
Old 08-26-2008, 11:48 AM
"Brian McKee"
 
Default 8.04-1 won't boot from degraded raid

On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Michael Hipp <Michael@hipp.com> wrote:
> But in the meantime ... this is Intrepid. What do I do about the "production"
> Hardy that I is now known to ship with a broken RAID implementation?

Just because it doesn't boot without intervention from a degraded
RAID, that doesn't mean it won't carry on when the RAID degrades
right? Or am I missing the issue?

Brian

--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
 
Old 08-26-2008, 12:02 PM
Soren Hansen
 
Default 8.04-1 won't boot from degraded raid

On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 07:48:10AM -0400, Brian McKee wrote:
>> But in the meantime ... this is Intrepid. What do I do about the
>> "production" Hardy that I is now known to ship with a broken RAID
>> implementation?
> Just because it doesn't boot without intervention from a degraded
> RAID, that doesn't mean it won't carry on when the RAID degrades
> right? Or am I missing the issue?

No, you are quite right. I also don't particularly approve of such
frivolous usage of the word "broken".

--
Soren Hansen |
Virtualisation specialist | Ubuntu Server Team
Canonical Ltd. | http://www.ubuntu.com/
--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
 
Old 08-26-2008, 03:20 PM
Michael Hipp
 
Default 8.04-1 won't boot from degraded raid

Soren Hansen wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 07:48:10AM -0400, Brian McKee wrote:
>>> But in the meantime ... this is Intrepid. What do I do about the
>>> "production" Hardy that I is now known to ship with a broken RAID
>>> implementation?
>> Just because it doesn't boot without intervention from a degraded
>> RAID, that doesn't mean it won't carry on when the RAID degrades
>> right? Or am I missing the issue?
>
> No, you are quite right. I also don't particularly approve of such
> frivolous usage of the word "broken".

What word would *you* choose to describe a server that won't boot when only one
of it's (supposedly redundant) members is down?

It might help if you were aware that I've been fighting this issue with Ubuntu
releases ever since the days of 4.10:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=15655
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/kernel-package/+bug/12052

Every time I think it's fixed I seem to learn that it's uh, er, not functional
once again.

(I'm pretty sure it works fine in 6.06 LTS tho it's been a long time since I
tested it.)

I've been installing operating systems on RAID1 for my little LAN servers for
as long as I can remember. Before Ubuntu it never occurred to me that getting a
system to boot a RAID1 with a defunct member was some rocket science.

Why, pray tell, can't Ubuntu make this Just Work like most every thing else in
Ubuntu?

Would my rant be any better received if I pointed out that this stuff has
worked just fine in versions of Red Hat and Windows dating back almost a decade.

Thanks,
Michael




--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
 
Old 08-26-2008, 03:54 PM
Soren Hansen
 
Default 8.04-1 won't boot from degraded raid

On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 10:20:45AM -0500, Michael Hipp wrote:
>>>> But in the meantime ... this is Intrepid. What do I do about the
>>>> "production" Hardy that I is now known to ship with a broken RAID
>>>> implementation?
>>> Just because it doesn't boot without intervention from a degraded
>>> RAID, that doesn't mean it won't carry on when the RAID degrades
>>> right? Or am I missing the issue?
>> No, you are quite right. I also don't particularly approve of such
>> frivolous usage of the word "broken".
> What word would *you* choose to describe a server that won't boot when
> only one of it's (supposedly redundant) members is down?

Apparantly, I should be calling it a server "that doesn't do what
Michael Hipp expects it to".

> It might help if you were aware that I've been fighting this issue
> with Ubuntu releases ever since the days of 4.10:
>
> http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=15655
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/kernel-package/+bug/12052

Ok, make that: a server "that *still* doesn't do what Michael Hipp
expects it to".

I'm quite happy that the server doesn't boot if my raid array is broken,
actually.

Imagine a scenario where the disk controller is flaky. Disk A goes away
while the system is running, and is then out of date. You reboot the
machine (or perhaps it rebooted itself because the flaky controller
short circuited or whatever), and for whatever reason (flaky controller,
remember?), the system boots from disk B instead. The changes to your
filesystem since disk A disappeared away are not there, and new changes
are being written to disk B, and there's no chance of merging the two.
This is what I refer to as "having a very bad day".

There are lots of other scenarios where you really don't want to boot if
your RAID array is not in tip-top shape. If the system is already
running, it knows something about its current state, which disk is the
more trustworthy one, etc. When booting, this is not the case.

I value data over uptime.

> Every time I think it's fixed I seem to learn that it's uh, er, not
> functional once again.

"Not acting in the way you want" is not the same as "not functional".

> (I'm pretty sure it works fine in 6.06 LTS tho it's been a long time
> since I tested it.)

Nope. It's the same.

> I've been installing operating systems on RAID1 for my little LAN
> servers for as long as I can remember. Before Ubuntu it never occurred
> to me that getting a system to boot a RAID1 with a defunct member was
> some rocket science.

True, it's more difficult than it could be. Dustin has been working hard
on getting that fixed in Intepid.

> Why, pray tell, can't Ubuntu make this Just Work like most every thing
> else in Ubuntu?

"Just Work" in this context means different things to different people.
To me, "Just Work" means that it above all doesn't corrupt my data. To
others, it might mean "start the sucker no matter what, so that I can
get on with my life". Neither is a malfunction, so both options should
be available, but spare me the "broken" and "not functional" babble.

> Would my rant be any better received if I pointed out that this stuff
> has worked just fine in versions of Red Hat and Windows dating back
> almost a decade.

Not in particular, no.

--
Soren Hansen |
Virtualisation specialist | Ubuntu Server Team
Canonical Ltd. | http://www.ubuntu.com/
--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
 
Old 08-26-2008, 04:10 PM
Michael Hipp
 
Default 8.04-1 won't boot from degraded raid

Soren Hansen wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 10:20:45AM -0500, Michael Hipp wrote:
>>>>> But in the meantime ... this is Intrepid. What do I do about the
>>>>> "production" Hardy that I is now known to ship with a broken RAID
>>>>> implementation?
>>>> Just because it doesn't boot without intervention from a degraded
>>>> RAID, that doesn't mean it won't carry on when the RAID degrades
>>>> right? Or am I missing the issue?
>>> No, you are quite right. I also don't particularly approve of such
>>> frivolous usage of the word "broken".
>> What word would *you* choose to describe a server that won't boot when
>> only one of it's (supposedly redundant) members is down?
>
> Apparantly, I should be calling it a server "that doesn't do what
> Michael Hipp expects it to".
>
>> It might help if you were aware that I've been fighting this issue
>> with Ubuntu releases ever since the days of 4.10:
>>
>> http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=15655
>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/kernel-package/+bug/12052
>
> Ok, make that: a server "that *still* doesn't do what Michael Hipp
> expects it to".
>
> I'm quite happy that the server doesn't boot if my raid array is broken,
> actually.
>
> Imagine a scenario where the disk controller is flaky. Disk A goes away
> while the system is running, and is then out of date. You reboot the
> machine (or perhaps it rebooted itself because the flaky controller
> short circuited or whatever), and for whatever reason (flaky controller,
> remember?), the system boots from disk B instead. The changes to your
> filesystem since disk A disappeared away are not there, and new changes
> are being written to disk B, and there's no chance of merging the two.
> This is what I refer to as "having a very bad day".
>
> There are lots of other scenarios where you really don't want to boot if
> your RAID array is not in tip-top shape. If the system is already
> running, it knows something about its current state, which disk is the
> more trustworthy one, etc. When booting, this is not the case.
>
> I value data over uptime.
>
>> Every time I think it's fixed I seem to learn that it's uh, er, not
>> functional once again.
>
> "Not acting in the way you want" is not the same as "not functional".
>
>> (I'm pretty sure it works fine in 6.06 LTS tho it's been a long time
>> since I tested it.)
>
> Nope. It's the same.
>
>> I've been installing operating systems on RAID1 for my little LAN
>> servers for as long as I can remember. Before Ubuntu it never occurred
>> to me that getting a system to boot a RAID1 with a defunct member was
>> some rocket science.
>
> True, it's more difficult than it could be. Dustin has been working hard
> on getting that fixed in Intepid.
>
>> Why, pray tell, can't Ubuntu make this Just Work like most every thing
>> else in Ubuntu?
>
> "Just Work" in this context means different things to different people.
> To me, "Just Work" means that it above all doesn't corrupt my data. To
> others, it might mean "start the sucker no matter what, so that I can
> get on with my life". Neither is a malfunction, so both options should
> be available, but spare me the "broken" and "not functional" babble.
>
>> Would my rant be any better received if I pointed out that this stuff
>> has worked just fine in versions of Red Hat and Windows dating back
>> almost a decade.
>
> Not in particular, no.

In every single answer above you are focused on the fact that it does fine for
the use case where you don't want it to boot upon failure. As noted in the page
[1] linked to by Dustin's blog, that's a valid use case. (A bit hard for a
guy like me to imagine. But valid nevertheless.)

What you don't seem to grasp is that it utterly fails at the other use case
where the system needs to boot regardless. You seem to be declaring that use
case as being one that's invalid (evidently because *I* prefer it as you offer
no other.

It's broken because the second use case doesn't work. And evidently can't be
made to work under any circumstances. Tell me, once again, what word you use to
describe a system where a documented valid use case utterly fails? It is not
functional. It is broken. For that (seemingly, to me, more common) use case of
wanting the server to do what servers do and run.

Michael

[1] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BootDegradedRaid

--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 11:12 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org