Re: RAID reconstruction problems

[Bernd Schubert <bernd-schubert@web.de>]

On Wednesday 03 September 2003 03:51, Michael Welsh Duggan wrote:
> Sorry about putting the wrong email address on my initial email.
>
> In reply to Donghui Wen, Yes, it was partitioned correctly.
>
> In reply to Bernd Schubert, I have installed mdadm, and am looking
> around for some pointers.  I am unsure what is going on still.  mdadm
> reports the follownig for /dev/md1:
>
> /dev/md1:
>         Version : 00.90.00
>   Creation Time : Sun Mar 16 21:42:44 2003
>      Raid Level : raid1
>      Array Size : 6144704 (5.86 GiB 6.29 GB)
>     Device Size : 6144704 (5.86 GiB 6.29 GB)
>    Raid Devices : 2
>   Total Devices : 2
> Preferred Minor : 1
>     Persistence : Superblock is persistent
>
>     Update Time : Mon Sep  1 19:48:11 2003
>           State : dirty, no-errors
>  Active Devices : 2
> Working Devices : 2
>  Failed Devices : 0
>   Spare Devices : 0
>
>
>     Number   Major   Minor   RaidDevice State
>        0       3       65        0      active sync      
> /dev/ide/host0/bus0/target1/lun0/part1 1       0        0        0     
> sync
>        2      22        1        2      active      
> /dev/ide/host0/bus1/target0/lun0/part1 UUID :
> 0e953226:03c91d46:cd00d52f:83a1334e
>          Events : 0.413
>
>
> /proc/mdstat reports the following:
>
> md1 : active raid1 ide/host0/bus1/target0/lun0/part1[2]
> ide/host0/bus0/target1/lun0/part1[0]
>       6144704 blocks [2/2] [U_]
>
> I'll play around with it some more, but it anyone recognizes these
> symptoms, please reply.

Hello Michael,

perhaps the same issue that David Chow had a few weeks ago? See the attached 
mail, you will also find it in the archives.

Bernd

PS: I removed the attachment for the ML, as its anyway in the archives.