PDA

View Full Version : [ubuntu] mdadm: metadata format 00.90 unknown, ignored.



BassKozz
December 10th, 2008, 07:35 PM
I created a RAID 5 array using this guide: http://bfish.xaedalus.net/?p=188

When I run "mdadm --monitor --scan" I get:

mdadm: metadata format 00.90 unknown, ignored.
I checked my mdadm.conf file and it looks like this:

# mdadm.conf
#
# Please refer to mdadm.conf(5) for information about this file.
#

# by default, scan all partitions (/proc/partitions) for MD superblocks.
# alternatively, specify devices to scan, using wildcards if desired.
DEVICE partitions
ARRAY /dev/md0 level=raid5 num-devices=3 metadata=00.90 UUID=13f95aef:9c364189:75b10d3a:87a53e2f

# auto-create devices with Debian standard permissions
CREATE owner=root group=disk mode=0660 auto=yes

# automatically tag new arrays as belonging to the local system
HOMEHOST <system>

# instruct the monitoring daemon where to send mail alerts
MAILADDR my-personal-email@gmail.com

# definitions of existing MD arrays

# This file was auto-generated on Sat, 06 Dec 2008 00:02:16 -0500
# by mkconf $Id$

If I remove "metadata=00.90" from the "DEVICE partitions" section this notice goes away, but I don't want to remove it if it is supposed to be there...

Any advice on what I should do?

p.s. Here are the results of "sudo mdadm --detail /dev/md0"

mdadm: metadata format 00.90 unknown, ignored.
/dev/md0:
Version : 00.90
Creation Time : Sat Dec 6 00:18:17 2008
Raid Level : raid5
Array Size : 488391808 (465.77 GiB 500.11 GB)
Used Dev Size : 244195904 (232.88 GiB 250.06 GB)
Raid Devices : 3
Total Devices : 3
Preferred Minor : 0
Persistence : Superblock is persistent

Update Time : Wed Dec 10 13:35:08 2008
State : clean
Active Devices : 3
Working Devices : 3
Failed Devices : 0
Spare Devices : 0

Layout : left-symmetric
Chunk Size : 64K

UUID : 13f95aef:9c364189:75b10d3a:87a53e2f (local to host Unicorn-NAS)
Events : 0.10

Number Major Minor RaidDevice State
0 8 1 0 active sync /dev/sda1
1 8 17 1 active sync /dev/sdb1
2 8 49 2 active sync /dev/sdd1

fjgaude
December 10th, 2008, 08:13 PM
Everything you have shown looks fine to me. I think the metadata format issue is likely a bug that is fixed in the next issue of mdadm, 2.6.8. There's been many small changes and improvements in the last year or so, from 2.6.3.

I created by array with 2.6.n, can't say which, but it works fine with both 2.5.3 and 2.6.7.

I feel you can delete it from the .conf file without any issues occurring.

Here's my .conf file:


# mdadm.conf
#
# Please refer to mdadm.conf(5) for information about this file.
#

# by default, scan all partitions (/proc/partitions) for MD superblocks.
# alternatively, specify devices to scan, using wildcards if desired.
DEVICE partitions

# auto-create devices with Debian standard permissions
CREATE owner=root group=disk mode=0660 auto=yes

# automatically tag new arrays as belonging to the local system
HOMEHOST <system>

# instruct the monitoring daemon where to send mail alerts
MAILADDR root

# definitions of existing MD arrays
ARRAY /dev/md32 level=raid5 num-devices=4 UUID=e7a804a6:30bd2cfd:f9346e8d:a51a8587

# This file was auto-generated on Sun, 09 Nov 2008 11:30:21 -0800
# by mkconf $Id$

The --monitor command likely hasn't been upgraded yet.

BassKozz
December 10th, 2008, 10:16 PM
I checked my version:

$ mdadm --version
mdadm - v2.6.7 - 6th June 2008

Is there a launchpad (or similar) that I can search for mdadm updates/bugs/etc to research this?

fjgaude
December 10th, 2008, 10:54 PM
Well, not sure... here's two:

http://neil.brown.name/git?p=mdadm

http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/raid/mdadm/ANNOUNCE

A google search might brng a link other developers.

BassKozz
December 10th, 2008, 11:13 PM
Thanks I'll try and hunt them down :-P

Do you think Canonical will release the new version ( 2.6.8 ) of mdadm as an update to Intrepid, or at least a backport?
Or will we have to wait till Jaunty ( 9.04 )?
Thanks again for all your help fjgaude

fjgaude
December 10th, 2008, 11:53 PM
Well, if history is any indication, it will be out with 9.04. I don't think we will see 2.6.8 in backports... mdadm is just not that popular! But I could be dead wrong. <smile>

BassKozz
December 10th, 2008, 11:57 PM
Well I found the fix: http://neil.brown.name/git?p=mdadm;a=commit;h=d7ee65c960fa8a6886df7416307 f57545ddc4460
But I'll have to wait till April to see it resolved in Ubuntu (Jaunty 9.04) :(

Ohh well, so long as it doesn't break my RAID5 Array or anything, I think I'll survive :lolflag:

EDIT: After further analysis of the commit/diff (http://neil.brown.name/git?p=mdadm;a=commitdiff;h=d7ee65c960fa8a6886df741 6307f57545ddc4460;hp=b3d3195538e315b3863235731112e ee7398d4340), I see what has changed...
They removed the leading "0" from the major release versioning of the metadata format... So all I had to do to fix it was change the following line in /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf:

ARRAY /dev/md0 level=raid5 num-devices=3 metadata=00.90 UUID=13f95aef:9c364189:75b10d3a:87a53e2f
to

ARRAY /dev/md0 level=raid5 num-devices=3 metadata=0.90 UUID=13f95aef:9c364189:75b10d3a:87a53e2f
Notice: metadata=00.90 is now metadata=0.90
All better, I LOVE IT WHEN I CAN FIX BUGS !!! :-D

Thanks again for the push in the right direction fjgaude

fjgaude
December 11th, 2008, 03:58 PM
Glad you got to the bottom of the issue. We await 9.04.

bullium
September 10th, 2009, 03:09 PM
Glad you got to the bottom of the issue. We await 9.04.

The problem still exists on 9.04 x64. I'm also happy to report that the fix listed above also still works with 9.04 :).

scotthep
October 15th, 2009, 01:47 PM
FYI..

Just did an install of 9.10 Server beta and guess what it's still there. I had to edit the same thing to eliminate the error.

fjgaude
October 15th, 2009, 03:53 PM
Strange... using 9.10 desktop and letting the OS auto config the mdadm.conf file, there is no metadata=0.090 in the ARRAY line.

Joshua
December 23rd, 2009, 05:23 PM
I've just upgraded my RAID box to 9.10 and I'm seeing that problem as well. My version:


$ mdadm --version
mdadm - v2.6.7.1 - 15th October 2008
(Just to be clear, I'm running Karmic, 9.10 and not 8.10 as that date might indicate.)

I think fjgaude is correct that for simple setups, the auto configuration of the mdadm.conf file seems to work fine and I don't think it included any "metadata=X" parameter. When I set mine up, I had to manipulate the assignment of drives to new arrays and my setup involves arrays of arrays. I couldn't get the mdadm.conf file to be automatically generated correctly. So after I got the array working correctly, I ran:


$ sudo -i
# mdadm --detail --scan >> /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf
That added new "ARRAY..." lines to the end of the mdadm.conf file. Then, I went into the file and manually deleted the old "ARRAY..." lines.

I noticed at the time that one major difference in those lines was the presence of the "metadata=X" parameter in the new lines. So far I haven't seen any problems with running the array with or without that parameter, though.

runesvend
July 8th, 2010, 12:51 PM
I'm running Lucid and it's still present here, because the version of mdadm is the same:


mdadm - v2.6.7.1 - 15th October 2008


I've requested that mdadm be updated in the bug report linked to below. Please mark this as "affects me too" if you're interested in getting mdadm updated.

Bug 603118: Please update mdadm to version 3.1.2 (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/mdadm/+bug/603118)

JohnnyC35
February 8th, 2011, 09:09 PM
I know this is an old thread but I just thought I would say that this bug is still around. I have (er had it) with the 00.90 format number, removing the 0 fixed it. I have the same error with "mdadm: metadata format 01.02 unknown, ignored." I tried removing the 0,that didn't seem to fix it. Just throwing that out there. Oh. and my mdadm version is v2.6.7.1 - 15th October 2008, on Ubuntu 10.04

rubylaser
February 8th, 2011, 09:29 PM
Have you tried changing the metadata line in your /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf to look like this?

ARRAY /dev/md0 metadata=1.2 UUID=d4e58776:640274d8:e368bf24:bd0fce41

JohnnyC35
February 9th, 2011, 01:22 AM
Have you tried changing the metadata line in your /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf to look like this?

ARRAY /dev/md0 metadata=1.2 UUID=d4e58776:640274d8:e368bf24:bd0fce41

it is coming up
mdadm: metadata format 1.02 unknown, ignored.

but I tried it as you quoted and the it came up as
mdadm: metadata format 1.2* unknown, ignored.

it's very odd

rubylaser
February 9th, 2011, 01:48 AM
This works fine for me with mdadm 3.1.4

ARRAY /dev/md/0 metadata=1.2 spares=2 name=mdadm-test:0 UUID=3b5636d7:ba53bd11:9d6dbfd7:9b8a351f

root@mdadm-test:~# mdadm --detail /dev/md0
/dev/md0:
Version : 1.2
Creation Time : Tue Feb 8 19:09:35 2011
Raid Level : raid10
Array Size : 2087936 (2039.34 MiB 2138.05 MB)
Used Dev Size : 1043968 (1019.67 MiB 1069.02 MB)
Raid Devices : 4
Total Devices : 6
Persistence : Superblock is persistent

Intent Bitmap : Internal

Update Time : Tue Feb 8 19:12:41 2011
State : active
Active Devices : 4
Working Devices : 6
Failed Devices : 0
Spare Devices : 2

Layout : near=2
Chunk Size : 512K

Name : mdadm-test:0
UUID : 3b5636d7:ba53bd11:9d6dbfd7:9b8a351f
Events : 20

Number Major Minor RaidDevice State
0 8 17 0 active sync /dev/sdb1
1 8 33 1 active sync /dev/sdc1
2 8 49 2 active sync /dev/sdd1
3 8 65 3 active sync /dev/sde1

4 8 81 - spare /dev/sdf1
5 8 97 - spare /dev/sdg1

This is just a Virtualbox instance, but it works fine for me with a newer version of mdadm.

JohnnyC35
February 10th, 2011, 01:27 AM
hmm...

here's my details


sudo mdadm --detail /dev/md0
mdadm: metadata format 1.02 unknown, ignored.
/dev/md0:
Version : 01.02
Creation Time : Mon Jan 24 08:35:59 2011
Raid Level : raid1
Array Size : 971755649 (926.74 GiB 995.08 GB)
Used Dev Size : 1943511298 (1853.48 GiB 1990.16 GB)
Raid Devices : 2
Total Devices : 2
Preferred Minor : 0
Persistence : Superblock is persistent

Update Time : Wed Feb 9 19:21:43 2011
State : clean
Active Devices : 2
Working Devices : 2
Failed Devices : 0
Spare Devices : 0

Name : Downloads
UUID : f17ac96a:2a8ffc04:f19011d2:7689175f
Events : 16628

Number Major Minor RaidDevice State
0 8 18 0 active sync /dev/sdb2
2 8 114 1 active sync /dev/sdh2

rubylaser
February 10th, 2011, 01:55 AM
Did you create this with the metadata=1.2 or -e 1.2 options? I assume so. If so, it could just be the older version of mdadm causing the problem.

JohnnyC35
February 10th, 2011, 02:09 AM
my one raid, raid5 I created via cli. my raid1, the one I am having that error, I created it with the Ubuntu disk utility, so maybe that's how it got that funky metadata number. if it won't cause any issues I'll just ignore it

rubylaser
February 10th, 2011, 01:24 PM
It shouldn't cause anything strange, other than potentially having to transfer the array to a new system. But that should still work as well.