[Top] [All Lists]

Re: failed to read root inode

To: Stan Hoeppner <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: failed to read root inode
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 09 May 2010 20:09:16 -0500
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4BE6CC83.5070305@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <4BE55A63.8070203@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4BE5EB5D.5020702@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20100509152818.7481c1e1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4BE6CC83.5070305@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Thunderbird (Macintosh/20100228)
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Emmanuel Florac put forth on 5/9/2010 8:28 AM:
>> Le Sat, 08 May 2010 17:53:17 -0500 vous écriviez:
>>> Why did the "crash" of a single disk in a hardware RAID6 cause a
>>> kernel freeze?  What is your definition of "disk crash"?  A single
>>> physical disk failure should not have caused this under any
>>> circumstances.  The RAID card should have handled a single disk
>>> failure transparently.
>> The RAID array may go west if the disk isn't properly set up,
>> particularly if it's a desktop-class drive. 
> By design, a RAID6 pack should be able to handle two simultaneous drive
> failures before the array goes offline.  According to the OP's post he lost
> one drive.  Unless it's a really crappy RAID card or if he's using a bunch
> of dissimilar drives causing problems with the entire array, he shouldn't
> have had a problem.
> This is why I'm digging for more information.  The information he presented
> here doesn't really make any sense.  One physical disk failure _shouldn't_
> have caused the problems he's experiencing.  I don't think we got the full
> story.

I tend to agree, something is missing here, which means my suggestions
for repair will be unlikely to be terribly successful; I think more is wrong
than we know...


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>