From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roberto Nunnari Subject: Re: replacing drives Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 16:05:38 +0200 Message-ID: <517FCFB2.3010900@supsi.ch> References: <517A8EB5.8080100@supsi.ch> <20130426155347.GA9928@cthulhu.home.robinhill.me.uk> <517FC46A.1080702@supsi.ch> <20130430134534.GA14347@cthulhu.home.robinhill.me.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130430134534.GA14347@cthulhu.home.robinhill.me.uk> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Roberto Nunnari , "linux-raid@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: linux-raid.ids Robin Hill wrote: > On Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 03:17:30PM +0200, Roberto Nunnari wrote: >>> - grow the arrays to 4 members (this avoids any loss of redundancy) >> now the next step.. that's a raid1 array.. is it possible to grow the >> arrays to 4 members? >> > Yes, there's no problem with running RAID1 arrays with more than two > mirrors (with md anyway) - they're all identical so it doesn't really > make any difference how many you have. > > Cheers, > Robin ok.. it's rebuilding.. I started with md0.. I'll wait it finishes and then do md1(8GB) and after that, md2(almost 2TB).. for now it seems to be going well, isn't it? # mdadm -D /dev/md0 /dev/md0: Version : 00.90 Creation Time : Fri Apr 22 08:20:49 2011 Raid Level : raid1 Array Size : 48827328 (46.57 GiB 50.00 GB) Used Dev Size : 48827328 (46.57 GiB 50.00 GB) Raid Devices : 4 Total Devices : 4 Preferred Minor : 0 Persistence : Superblock is persistent Update Time : Tue Apr 30 16:01:40 2013 State : clean, degraded, recovering Active Devices : 2 Working Devices : 4 Failed Devices : 0 Spare Devices : 2 Rebuild Status : 15% complete UUID : 1158db16:ee1fcafc:b6fab772:d376c644 Events : 0.964 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State 0 8 1 0 active sync /dev/sda1 1 8 33 1 active sync /dev/sdc1 4 8 49 2 spare rebuilding /dev/sdd1 5 8 17 3 spare rebuilding /dev/sdb1 Robi