>Received: from mobile.sauter-bc.com (unknown [10.1.6.21])
	by basel1.sauter-bc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 9047B57306; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 14:02:16 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ch.sauter-bc.com (sup.cad.sba [10.1.200.117])
	by mobile.sauter-bc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 9679525835; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 14:02:15 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <3D2D73C7.1AC7D9CA@ch.sauter-bc.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 14:02:15 +0200
From: Simon Matter <simon.matter@ch.sauter-bc.com>
Organization: Sauter AG, Basel
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [de] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.19-6.2.16 i686)
X-Accept-Language: de-CH
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mihai RUSU <dizzy@roedu.net>
Cc: Seth Mos <knuffie@xs4all.nl>, Linux XFS List <linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: md + xfs (fwd)
References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0207111441130.17973-100000@ahriman.bucharest.roedu.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests= version=2.20
X-Spam-Level: 
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com
Precedence: bulk

Mihai RUSU schrieb:
> 
> On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Seth Mos wrote:
> 
> >
> > I think that the raid device has a older state in which the filesystem was
> > clean. But this one is rather awkward. I don't think it is normally possible.
> >

When booting a RedHat system with softraid, the linuxrc script looks
something like this:

#!/bin/nash
 
echo "Loading raid1 module"
insmod /lib/raid1.o
mount -t proc /proc /proc
echo Mounting /proc filesystem
echo Creating root device
mkrootdev /dev/root
raidautorun /dev/md0
echo 0x0100 > /proc/sys/kernel/real-root-dev
umount /proc
echo Mounting root filesystem
mount --ro -t xfs /dev/root /sysroot
pivot_root /sysroot /sysroot/initrd

The mount command is a builtin command of /bin/nash, maybe this explains
the different behaviour. I hope one of the gurus can explain it to us.

Simon

> 
> That is why I asked here in the first place. I was not sure about how
> RAID1 on linux works but it seems to me that when a crash occured it
> choses one of the RAID1 images and rebuilds from that, but I am afraid
> that maybe in that state only the databytes that tell XFS it is clean,
> where set right, and other fs structures are corupt.
> 
> I should xfscheck that partition but I would really prefer to do that when
> all other fails (beeing a production server).
> 
> ----------------------------
> Mihai RUSU
> 
> Disclaimer: Any views or opinions presented within this e-mail are solely
> those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of any company,
> unless otherwise specifically stated.