From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mario 'BitKoenig' Holbe Subject: Re: bug in mdadm? Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 15:59:48 +0200 Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: References: <20040529121725.GA7259@fubini.pci.uni-heidelberg.de> Return-path: To: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Bernd Schubert wrote: > for one of our raid1 devices 'mdadm -D' reports 3 devices and 1 > failed device, though I'm pretty sure that I specified > '--raid-devices=2' when I created that raid-array. [...] > Raid Devices : 2 You did. > Total Devices : 3 Plus one spare disk. > Active Devices : 2 > Working Devices : 2 Two mirrors up and running. > Failed Devices : 1 > Spare Devices : 0 One disk failed or out-of-sync or something like that. [moved from above] > One another system, 'mdadm -D' reports the correct numbers. What do you expect as 'correct'? Did you move *all* the physical disks of the one system to the other? Did you also move your mdadm.conf (if you didn't move the disk with the root-fs), if there is one? > The data from /proc/mdstat report the correct numbers. > Any ideas whats the reason for this? Is it a bug in mdadm or has the > superblock really wrong data? Well, perhaps there is any partition somewhere else on your disks with the same UUID, which gets merged to md0 as spare disk: Did you remove a mirror from md0 in the past and add another one? Another chance could be you are using mdadm's 'spare groups'. I don't know, what mdadm does show in this case. regards, Mario -- reich sein heisst nicht, einen Ferrari zu kaufen, sondern einen zu verbrennen Dietmar Wischmeier