LinuxQuestions.org
Did you know LQ has a Linux Hardware Compatibility List?
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Software
User Name
Password
Linux - Software This forum is for Software issues.
Having a problem installing a new program? Want to know which application is best for the job? Post your question in this forum.

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 01-09-2007, 09:40 PM   #1
PhillipHuang
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2006
Location: Shen Zhen
Distribution: Ubuntu 10.04
Posts: 198

Rep: Reputation: 33
The meaning of "/dev/md0: No md super block found"?


This article is long, please read with kind patience.

Two questions about creating soft RAID by mdadm:

1. Need I to restart system after fdisk, and when start up again, do I have to format the partitions before create RAID?

I'm now reading some books about RHCE exam written by Michal Jang. He said, "When you configure RAID, you will format same spaces twice, the first format the patitions that make up the array, while the second format the RAID as if they were new partitions".

From my practices in lab, it seems that I must reboot the OS to activate new partitions. Later, I issue mdadm to create array while skip the first formation step above, the array is also built successfully.

I've googled for many pages, and do not confirm whether I did right things yet.

2. What's the meaning of "/dev/md0: No md super block found, not an md component."?

Here's my process:
fdisk (new partitions assigned fd)--> reboot OS --> mdadm --create /dev/md0 --level=1 --raid-devices=2 /dev/sda5 /dev/sda6 --spare-devices=1 /dev/sda7
The array is created successfully without error, then check the status:
Code:
[root@Muyang ~]# mdadm --query /dev/md0
/dev/md0: 101.88MiB raid1 2 devices, 1 spare. Use mdadm --detail for more detail.
/dev/md0: No md super block found, not an md component.
[root@Muyang ~]# mdadm --detail /dev/md0
/dev/md0:
        Version : 00.90.01
  Creation Time : Wed Jan 10 10:03:33 2007
     Raid Level : raid1
     Array Size : 104320 (101.88 MiB 106.82 MB)
    Device Size : 104320 (101.88 MiB 106.82 MB)
   Raid Devices : 2
  Total Devices : 3
Preferred Minor : 0
    Persistence : Superblock is persistent

    Update Time : Wed Jan 10 10:03:37 2007
          State : clean
 Active Devices : 2
Working Devices : 3
 Failed Devices : 0
  Spare Devices : 1


    Number   Major   Minor   RaidDevice State
       0       8        5        0      active sync   /dev/sda5
       1       8        6        1      active sync   /dev/sda6
       2       8        7       -1      spare   /dev/sda7
           UUID : 345a71c9:76dc0d4c:8e753193:96fde17c
         Events : 0.2
Superblock records the array information, and I think /dev/md0 means meta device of array, why does it say "not found md super block"? Is the concept of "superblock" based on hardware, not devices as "/dev/md0"?

Please give me some hints.
Thanks in advance.
--Phillip

Last edited by PhillipHuang; 01-09-2007 at 09:49 PM.
 
Old 01-09-2007, 09:59 PM   #2
macemoneta
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Manalapan, NJ
Distribution: Fedora x86 and x86_64, Debian PPC and ARM, Android
Posts: 4,593
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 327Reputation: 327Reputation: 327Reputation: 327
First, the only reason you need to restart the system is because you are altering the partition table on a dsisk that the system is using, probably for the root filesystem. When using real devices as opposed to the nonsensical configuration, you would not experience this. It would be better to experiment with loopback devices (see this).

Second, use the command:

mdadm --examine /dev/sda{5,6,7}

to examine the superblock on each device. I suspect the spare does not (yet) have a superblock.
 
Old 01-09-2007, 10:15 PM   #3
PhillipHuang
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2006
Location: Shen Zhen
Distribution: Ubuntu 10.04
Posts: 198

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 33
Please see the following:
Code:
[root@Muyang ~]# mdadm --examine /dev/sda5
/dev/sda5:
          Magic : a92b4efc
        Version : 00.90.00
           UUID : 345a71c9:76dc0d4c:8e753193:96fde17c
  Creation Time : Wed Jan 10 10:03:33 2007
     Raid Level : raid1
    Device Size : 104320 (101.88 MiB 106.82 MB)
   Raid Devices : 2
  Total Devices : 3
Preferred Minor : 0

    Update Time : Wed Jan 10 10:05:23 2007
          State : clean
 Active Devices : 2
Working Devices : 3
 Failed Devices : 0
  Spare Devices : 1
       Checksum : 51f0cb9 - correct
         Events : 0.4


      Number   Major   Minor   RaidDevice State
this     0       8        5        0      active sync   /dev/sda5
   0     0       8        5        0      active sync   /dev/sda5
   1     1       8        6        1      active sync   /dev/sda6
   2     2       8        7        2      spare   /dev/sda7
[root@Muyang ~]# mdadm --examine /dev/sda6
/dev/sda6:
          Magic : a92b4efc
        Version : 00.90.00
           UUID : 345a71c9:76dc0d4c:8e753193:96fde17c
  Creation Time : Wed Jan 10 10:03:33 2007
     Raid Level : raid1
    Device Size : 104320 (101.88 MiB 106.82 MB)
   Raid Devices : 2
  Total Devices : 3
Preferred Minor : 0

    Update Time : Wed Jan 10 10:05:23 2007
          State : clean
 Active Devices : 2
Working Devices : 3
 Failed Devices : 0
  Spare Devices : 1
       Checksum : 51f0cbc - correct
         Events : 0.4


      Number   Major   Minor   RaidDevice State
this     1       8        6        1      active sync   /dev/sda6
   0     0       8        5        0      active sync   /dev/sda5
   1     1       8        6        1      active sync   /dev/sda6
   2     2       8        7        2      spare   /dev/sda7
[root@Muyang ~]# mdadm --examine /dev/sda7
/dev/sda7:
          Magic : a92b4efc
        Version : 00.90.00
           UUID : 345a71c9:76dc0d4c:8e753193:96fde17c
  Creation Time : Wed Jan 10 10:03:33 2007
     Raid Level : raid1
    Device Size : 104320 (101.88 MiB 106.82 MB)
   Raid Devices : 2
  Total Devices : 3
Preferred Minor : 0

    Update Time : Wed Jan 10 10:05:23 2007
          State : clean
 Active Devices : 2
Working Devices : 3
 Failed Devices : 0
  Spare Devices : 1
       Checksum : 51f0cb9 - correct
         Events : 0.4


      Number   Major   Minor   RaidDevice State
this     2       8        7        2      spare   /dev/sda7
   0     0       8        5        0      active sync   /dev/sda5
   1     1       8        6        1      active sync   /dev/sda6
   2     2       8        7        2      spare   /dev/sda7
 
Old 01-09-2007, 10:35 PM   #4
macemoneta
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Manalapan, NJ
Distribution: Fedora x86 and x86_64, Debian PPC and ARM, Android
Posts: 4,593
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 327Reputation: 327Reputation: 327Reputation: 327
OK, good. If the output of:

mdadm --detail /dev/md0

Is also good, then the error is incorrect. I'm running mdadm-2.5.4-2 and not seeing the error, so it may be version related.

You should also check your /etc/mdadm.conf. In particular, make sure that the UUID, if specified matches that in the superblocks.
 
Old 01-09-2007, 11:25 PM   #5
PhillipHuang
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2006
Location: Shen Zhen
Distribution: Ubuntu 10.04
Posts: 198

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 33
Thank you. The output of "mdadm --detail /dev/md0" also run well as shown:
Code:
[root@Muyang ~]# mdadm --detail /dev/md0
/dev/md0:
        Version : 00.90.01
  Creation Time : Wed Jan 10 10:03:33 2007
     Raid Level : raid1
     Array Size : 104320 (101.88 MiB 106.82 MB)
    Device Size : 104320 (101.88 MiB 106.82 MB)
   Raid Devices : 2
  Total Devices : 3
Preferred Minor : 0
    Persistence : Superblock is persistent

    Update Time : Wed Jan 10 10:05:23 2007
          State : clean
 Active Devices : 2
Working Devices : 3
 Failed Devices : 0
  Spare Devices : 1


    Number   Major   Minor   RaidDevice State
       0       8        5        0      active sync   /dev/sda5
       1       8        6        1      active sync   /dev/sda6
       2       8        7       -1      spare   /dev/sda7
           UUID : 345a71c9:76dc0d4c:8e753193:96fde17c
         Events : 0.4
My Operating System is CentOS4.4, mdadm-1.6.0-3.
Quote:
Is also good, then the error is incorrect.
Do you mean this is bug of mdadm-1.6.0-3, it reports wrong while the array is OK?

I've checked /etc/mdadm.conf, and sure it is right to assemble array.
Code:
[root@Muyang ~]# cat /etc/mdadm.conf 
DEVICE /dev/sda5 /dev/sda6 /dev/sda7
ARRAY /dev/md0 UUID=345a71c9:76dc0d4c:8e753193:96fde17c
Update, same thing happens on other machine with mdadm-1.7.0.
Code:
-bash-2.05b# mdadm --query /dev/md0
/dev/md0: 1535.94MiB raid1 2 devices, 0 spares. Use mdadm --detail for more detail.
/dev/md0: No md super block found, not an md component.
-bash-2.05b# mdadm -V
mdadm - v1.7.0 - 11 August 2004
Regards,
--Phillip

Last edited by PhillipHuang; 01-09-2007 at 11:53 PM.
 
Old 01-10-2007, 08:26 AM   #6
macemoneta
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Manalapan, NJ
Distribution: Fedora x86 and x86_64, Debian PPC and ARM, Android
Posts: 4,593
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 327Reputation: 327Reputation: 327Reputation: 327
mdadm is currently at 2.6. There have been many changes to messages since 1.7. I think the message you are seeing can be safely ignored.
 
Old 01-10-2007, 07:37 PM   #7
PhillipHuang
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2006
Location: Shen Zhen
Distribution: Ubuntu 10.04
Posts: 198

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 33
Macemoneta, thanks for your kind help. I decide to update the lastest mdadm-2.6.

Regards,
Phillip
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
dvdrw on VAIO: "mount: /dev/hdb is not a valid block device" Haystack Linux - Hardware 13 01-06-2007 02:33 PM
"/dev/sda1 is not a valid block device" used to be millionknives Linux - Hardware 6 12-13-2005 06:39 PM
"incorrect super block" kpachopoulos *BSD 1 10-20-2004 05:22 PM
"/dev/cdrom is not a valid block device" error kungfuhokie Fedora 4 06-11-2004 06:55 AM
Kernel 2.6.1 /dev/cdrom "not a valid block device" jwjensen Linux - General 8 01-27-2004 12:50 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:27 PM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration