I don't have a RAID but get the warning mdadm.conf defines no arrays
40
I installed 16.04 Server and I have had a similar message in my logs and this message when I upgrade initramfs packages through normal package upgrade.
...
Setting up initramfs-tools (0.122ubuntu8.3) ...
update-initramfs: deferring update (trigger activated)
Processing triggers for initramfs-tools (0.122ubuntu8.3) ...
update-initramfs: Generating /boot/initrd.img-4.4.0-38-generic
W: mdadm: /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf defines no arrays.
Is this normal, or is Ubuntu expecting to find a RAID because of some misconfiguration somewhere?
Here is the contents of /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf:
# mdadm.conf
#
# Please refer to mdadm.conf(5) for information about this file.
#
# by default (built-in), scan all partitions (/proc/partitions) and all
# containers for MD superblocks. alternatively, specify devices to scan, using
# wildcards if desired.
#DEVICE partitions containers
# 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
server 16.04 mdadm
asked Oct 9 '16 at 16:30
PaulPaul
1,53341329
add a comment |
40
I installed 16.04 Server and I have had a similar message in my logs and this message when I upgrade initramfs packages through normal package upgrade.
...
Setting up initramfs-tools (0.122ubuntu8.3) ...
update-initramfs: deferring update (trigger activated)
Processing triggers for initramfs-tools (0.122ubuntu8.3) ...
update-initramfs: Generating /boot/initrd.img-4.4.0-38-generic
W: mdadm: /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf defines no arrays.
Is this normal, or is Ubuntu expecting to find a RAID because of some misconfiguration somewhere?
Here is the contents of /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf:
# mdadm.conf
#
# Please refer to mdadm.conf(5) for information about this file.
#
# by default (built-in), scan all partitions (/proc/partitions) and all
# containers for MD superblocks. alternatively, specify devices to scan, using
# wildcards if desired.
#DEVICE partitions containers
# 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
server 16.04 mdadm
asked Oct 9 '16 at 16:30
PaulPaul
1,53341329
1
This issue should totally be re-opened.
– Franklin Yu
Jul 21 '18 at 20:58
add a comment |
40
40
40
11
I installed 16.04 Server and I have had a similar message in my logs and this message when I upgrade initramfs packages through normal package upgrade.
...
Setting up initramfs-tools (0.122ubuntu8.3) ...
update-initramfs: deferring update (trigger activated)
Processing triggers for initramfs-tools (0.122ubuntu8.3) ...
update-initramfs: Generating /boot/initrd.img-4.4.0-38-generic
W: mdadm: /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf defines no arrays.
Is this normal, or is Ubuntu expecting to find a RAID because of some misconfiguration somewhere?
Here is the contents of /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf:
# mdadm.conf
#
# Please refer to mdadm.conf(5) for information about this file.
#
# by default (built-in), scan all partitions (/proc/partitions) and all
# containers for MD superblocks. alternatively, specify devices to scan, using
# wildcards if desired.
#DEVICE partitions containers
# 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
server 16.04 mdadm
asked Oct 9 '16 at 16:30
PaulPaul
1,53341329
I installed 16.04 Server and I have had a similar message in my logs and this message when I upgrade initramfs packages through normal package upgrade.
...
Setting up initramfs-tools (0.122ubuntu8.3) ...
update-initramfs: deferring update (trigger activated)
Processing triggers for initramfs-tools (0.122ubuntu8.3) ...
update-initramfs: Generating /boot/initrd.img-4.4.0-38-generic
W: mdadm: /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf defines no arrays.
Is this normal, or is Ubuntu expecting to find a RAID because of some misconfiguration somewhere?
Here is the contents of /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf:
# mdadm.conf
#
# Please refer to mdadm.conf(5) for information about this file.
#
# by default (built-in), scan all partitions (/proc/partitions) and all
# containers for MD superblocks. alternatively, specify devices to scan, using
# wildcards if desired.
#DEVICE partitions containers
# 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
server 16.04 mdadm
server 16.04 mdadm
asked Oct 9 '16 at 16:30
PaulPaul
1,53341329
asked Oct 9 '16 at 16:30
PaulPaul
1,53341329
edited Oct 14 '16 at 17:40
Paul
asked Oct 9 '16 at 16:30
PaulPaul
1,53341329
asked Oct 9 '16 at 16:30
PaulPaul
1,53341329
asked Oct 9 '16 at 16:30
PaulPaul
1,53341329
1,53341329
1
This issue should totally be re-opened.
– Franklin Yu
Jul 21 '18 at 20:58
add a comment |
1
This issue should totally be re-opened.
– Franklin Yu
Jul 21 '18 at 20:58
1
1
This issue should totally be re-opened.
– Franklin Yu
Jul 21 '18 at 20:58
This issue should totally be re-opened.
– Franklin Yu
Jul 21 '18 at 20:58
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
40
The error says W: mdadm: /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf defines no arrays.
I reckon that the warning is displayed whenever there's no ARRAY line in mdadm.conf.
The obvious solution would be to add one:
ARRAY <ignore> devices=/dev/sda
Worked for me...
answered Dec 17 '16 at 11:15
Steffen BreitbachSteffen Breitbach
41662
Thank you very much, Steffen. This has stopped the warnings.
– Paul
Jan 2 '17 at 19:29
What does it do? It wont show error? Or wont show and still will crash? Or it doesnt crash aalready but just shows error? If just showing then i dont care to add something if not fixing crashing.
– Kangarooo
Mar 5 '17 at 23:48
2
@Kangarooo There is no "crashing" problem reported anywhere in this question. The problem is just to make a warning go away. Steffen has provided a proper solution by telling mdadm that it should not expect there to be any arrays, which is all the warning was telling about.
– Paul
Mar 6 '17 at 1:01
1
Interesting: I have two instances of 16.04.4 installed at about the same time on similar hardware. The first has /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf and therefore gives the error; the second does not even have that file. One wonders what triggers the installation of that file — maybe it figures out (wrongly?) that an array controller is present even if it is not being used?
– Gwyneth Llewelyn
Mar 2 '18 at 9:19
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "89"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faskubuntu.com%2fquestions%2f834903%2fi-dont-have-a-raid-but-get-the-warning-mdadm-conf-defines-no-arrays%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
40
The error says W: mdadm: /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf defines no arrays.
I reckon that the warning is displayed whenever there's no ARRAY line in mdadm.conf.
The obvious solution would be to add one:
ARRAY <ignore> devices=/dev/sda
Worked for me...
answered Dec 17 '16 at 11:15
Steffen BreitbachSteffen Breitbach
41662
Thank you very much, Steffen. This has stopped the warnings.
– Paul
Jan 2 '17 at 19:29
What does it do? It wont show error? Or wont show and still will crash? Or it doesnt crash aalready but just shows error? If just showing then i dont care to add something if not fixing crashing.
– Kangarooo
Mar 5 '17 at 23:48
2
@Kangarooo There is no "crashing" problem reported anywhere in this question. The problem is just to make a warning go away. Steffen has provided a proper solution by telling mdadm that it should not expect there to be any arrays, which is all the warning was telling about.
– Paul
Mar 6 '17 at 1:01
1
Interesting: I have two instances of 16.04.4 installed at about the same time on similar hardware. The first has /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf and therefore gives the error; the second does not even have that file. One wonders what triggers the installation of that file — maybe it figures out (wrongly?) that an array controller is present even if it is not being used?
– Gwyneth Llewelyn
Mar 2 '18 at 9:19
add a comment |
40
The error says W: mdadm: /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf defines no arrays.
I reckon that the warning is displayed whenever there's no ARRAY line in mdadm.conf.
The obvious solution would be to add one:
ARRAY <ignore> devices=/dev/sda
Worked for me...
answered Dec 17 '16 at 11:15
Steffen BreitbachSteffen Breitbach
41662
Thank you very much, Steffen. This has stopped the warnings.
– Paul
Jan 2 '17 at 19:29
What does it do? It wont show error? Or wont show and still will crash? Or it doesnt crash aalready but just shows error? If just showing then i dont care to add something if not fixing crashing.
– Kangarooo
Mar 5 '17 at 23:48
2
@Kangarooo There is no "crashing" problem reported anywhere in this question. The problem is just to make a warning go away. Steffen has provided a proper solution by telling mdadm that it should not expect there to be any arrays, which is all the warning was telling about.
– Paul
Mar 6 '17 at 1:01
1
Interesting: I have two instances of 16.04.4 installed at about the same time on similar hardware. The first has /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf and therefore gives the error; the second does not even have that file. One wonders what triggers the installation of that file — maybe it figures out (wrongly?) that an array controller is present even if it is not being used?
– Gwyneth Llewelyn
Mar 2 '18 at 9:19
add a comment |
40
40
40
The error says W: mdadm: /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf defines no arrays.
I reckon that the warning is displayed whenever there's no ARRAY line in mdadm.conf.
The obvious solution would be to add one:
ARRAY <ignore> devices=/dev/sda
Worked for me...
answered Dec 17 '16 at 11:15
Steffen BreitbachSteffen Breitbach
41662
The error says W: mdadm: /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf defines no arrays.
I reckon that the warning is displayed whenever there's no ARRAY line in mdadm.conf.
The obvious solution would be to add one:
ARRAY <ignore> devices=/dev/sda
Worked for me...
answered Dec 17 '16 at 11:15
Steffen BreitbachSteffen Breitbach
41662
answered Dec 17 '16 at 11:15
Steffen BreitbachSteffen Breitbach
41662
answered Dec 17 '16 at 11:15
Steffen BreitbachSteffen Breitbach
41662
answered Dec 17 '16 at 11:15
Steffen BreitbachSteffen Breitbach
41662
41662
Thank you very much, Steffen. This has stopped the warnings.
– Paul
Jan 2 '17 at 19:29
What does it do? It wont show error? Or wont show and still will crash? Or it doesnt crash aalready but just shows error? If just showing then i dont care to add something if not fixing crashing.
– Kangarooo
Mar 5 '17 at 23:48
2
@Kangarooo There is no "crashing" problem reported anywhere in this question. The problem is just to make a warning go away. Steffen has provided a proper solution by telling mdadm that it should not expect there to be any arrays, which is all the warning was telling about.
– Paul
Mar 6 '17 at 1:01
1
Interesting: I have two instances of 16.04.4 installed at about the same time on similar hardware. The first has /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf and therefore gives the error; the second does not even have that file. One wonders what triggers the installation of that file — maybe it figures out (wrongly?) that an array controller is present even if it is not being used?
– Gwyneth Llewelyn
Mar 2 '18 at 9:19
add a comment |
Thank you very much, Steffen. This has stopped the warnings.
– Paul
Jan 2 '17 at 19:29
What does it do? It wont show error? Or wont show and still will crash? Or it doesnt crash aalready but just shows error? If just showing then i dont care to add something if not fixing crashing.
– Kangarooo
Mar 5 '17 at 23:48
2
@Kangarooo There is no "crashing" problem reported anywhere in this question. The problem is just to make a warning go away. Steffen has provided a proper solution by telling mdadm that it should not expect there to be any arrays, which is all the warning was telling about.
– Paul
Mar 6 '17 at 1:01
1
Interesting: I have two instances of 16.04.4 installed at about the same time on similar hardware. The first has /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf and therefore gives the error; the second does not even have that file. One wonders what triggers the installation of that file — maybe it figures out (wrongly?) that an array controller is present even if it is not being used?
– Gwyneth Llewelyn
Mar 2 '18 at 9:19
Thank you very much, Steffen. This has stopped the warnings.
– Paul
Jan 2 '17 at 19:29
Thank you very much, Steffen. This has stopped the warnings.
– Paul
Jan 2 '17 at 19:29
What does it do? It wont show error? Or wont show and still will crash? Or it doesnt crash aalready but just shows error? If just showing then i dont care to add something if not fixing crashing.
– Kangarooo
Mar 5 '17 at 23:48
What does it do? It wont show error? Or wont show and still will crash? Or it doesnt crash aalready but just shows error? If just showing then i dont care to add something if not fixing crashing.
– Kangarooo
Mar 5 '17 at 23:48
2
2
@Kangarooo There is no "crashing" problem reported anywhere in this question. The problem is just to make a warning go away. Steffen has provided a proper solution by telling mdadm that it should not expect there to be any arrays, which is all the warning was telling about.
– Paul
Mar 6 '17 at 1:01
@Kangarooo There is no "crashing" problem reported anywhere in this question. The problem is just to make a warning go away. Steffen has provided a proper solution by telling mdadm that it should not expect there to be any arrays, which is all the warning was telling about.
– Paul
Mar 6 '17 at 1:01
1
1
Interesting: I have two instances of 16.04.4 installed at about the same time on similar hardware. The first has /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf and therefore gives the error; the second does not even have that file. One wonders what triggers the installation of that file — maybe it figures out (wrongly?) that an array controller is present even if it is not being used?
– Gwyneth Llewelyn
Mar 2 '18 at 9:19
Interesting: I have two instances of 16.04.4 installed at about the same time on similar hardware. The first has /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf and therefore gives the error; the second does not even have that file. One wonders what triggers the installation of that file — maybe it figures out (wrongly?) that an array controller is present even if it is not being used?
– Gwyneth Llewelyn
Mar 2 '18 at 9:19
add a comment |
draft saved
draft discarded
Thanks for contributing an answer to Ask Ubuntu!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faskubuntu.com%2fquestions%2f834903%2fi-dont-have-a-raid-but-get-the-warning-mdadm-conf-defines-no-arrays%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
This issue should totally be re-opened.
– Franklin Yu
Jul 21 '18 at 20:58