From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "David M. Strang" Subject: Re: MD or MDADM bug? Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 04:33:36 -0400 Message-ID: <018f01c5af99$0343f6d0$c100a8c0@NCNF5131FTH> References: <015901c5af3b$e0885710$c100a8c0@NCNF5131FTH> <17176.2600.694418.472339@cse.unsw.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Neil Brown Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Neil Brown wrote: > On Thursday September 1, dstrang@shellpower.net wrote: > > This is somewhat of a crosspost from my thread yesterday; but I think it > > deserves it's own thread atm. Some time ago, I had a device fail -- with > > the > > help of Neil, Tyler & others on the mailing list; a few patches to > > mdadm -- > > I was able to recover. Using mdadm --remove & mdadm --add, I was able to > > rebuild the bad disc in my array. Everything seemed fine; however -- > > when I > > rebooted and re-assembled the raid; it wouldn't take the disk that was > > re-added. I had to add it again; and let it rebuild. About 3 weeks ago, > > I > > lost power -- the outage lasted longer than the UPS, and my system > > shutdown. > > Upon startup, once again -- I had to re-add 'the disk' back to the > > array. > > For some reason, if I remove a device and add it back -- when I stop and > > re-assemble the array - it won't 'start' that disk. > .... > > > > I'm using mdadm 2.0-devel-3 on a Linux 2.6.11.12 kernel, with version-1 > > superblocks. > mdadm 2.0 had a fix for assembling version-1 arrays that would > particularly affect raid5. Try using that instead of -devel-3. No luck -- -(root@abyss)-(~)- # mdadm -A /dev/md0 /dev/sda /dev/sdb /dev/sdc /dev/sdd /dev/sde /dev/sdf /dev/sdg /dev/sdh /dev/sdi /dev/sdj /dev/sdk /dev/sdl /dev/sdm /dev/sdn /dev/sdo /dev/sdp /dev/sdq /dev/sdr /dev/sds /dev/sdt /dev/sdu /dev/sdv /dev/sdw /dev/sdx /dev/sdy /dev/sdz /dev/sdaa /dev/sdab -f mdadm: /dev/md0 assembled from 26 drives - not enough to start the array. Any other suggestions? -- David