Hello,
The system is at home and so are all my notes.
Since I first started using RAID arrays, this is the first time I have
had problems with an install. I have been fighting this for over a
week. The machine was running F7 with RAID arrays.
I first tried to install F10 using a DVD that was checked by both
sha1sum and disk check on install including the RAID array.
The install is working without the RAID array.
After installing on the non-RAID drive, I started going through the
install to get the RAID working.
After much reading I found out that due to the problem install, I had to
zero the Superblocks. I did this and ensured that there was no
superblock data with mdadm --examine {partitions}.
Recreated the multiple RAID partitions.
I am using a 1.5T drive partitions into 8 usable partitions.
I created the 8 partitions using mdadm.
I created /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf with mdadm --examine --scan as per the
man page.
The RAID partitions mounted and I transferred data to the partitions. I
cannot remember if I did a reboot before I transferred data. I think I
did as I was trying to be careful.
I have read about a change in the way that the kernel and udev scan RAID
arrays that have caused other people problems and I am wondering if this
is my problem.
On a reboot yesterday, my mdadm.conf file was empty and my raid arrays
were not mounted. No data in 'cat /proc/mdadmstat'.
While I was fighting with this, I noticed that I would end up with md_d1
md_d26 ... type of partitions instead of the md1, md2, ... named
partitions. Now I am not sure if this is part of the fact that the
drive is partitioned or what. Should I be using md_d1 assignments
instead of md1 names as I am using partitions? I am not sure of this as
all I have read doesn't give me a good answer.
I can do an mdadm --examine --scan {partition} and I have confirmed the
details on the drives. One thing I noticed reading through the
mdadm.conf file last night is it states.
super-minor=
The value is an integer which indicates the minor
number that was stored in the superblock when the
array was created. When an array is created as
/dev/mdX, then the minor number X is stored.
In the scan, I noticed that the numbers didn't seem to correspond to the
mdX numbers. It was late and I didn't write it down. The mdX number
was in the scan data but not in the minor column.
I need to get this working. My wife doesn't want her laptop upgraded
from F7 due to this headache.
I have had some other strange things happen with F10 but those are not
directly related to this problem.
Both drives are new Seagate drives with the updated firmware to work
with RAID and Linux. One of the reasons that I held off on the install
until now.
Please help me as I need to get some sleep. ;-)
--
Robin Laing