From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Janek Kozicki Subject: Re: telling mdadm to use spare drive. Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 10:50:49 +0100 Message-ID: <20071109105049.6e5d9e6a@absurd> References: <20071104170502.6db7fcb1@absurd> <87bqa6jtxc.fsf@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> <20071107182602.61162e00@absurd> <47320E4F.3070308@sauce.co.nz> <20071108212804.771c39ac@absurd> <47338058.4080908@sauce.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <47338058.4080908@sauce.co.nz> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Linux RAID Mailing List List-Id: linux-raid.ids Richard Scobie said: (by the date of Fri, 09 Nov 2007 10:32:08 +1300) > This was the bug I was thinking of: > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-raid&m=116003247912732&w=2 This bug says that it only with mdadm 1.x: "If a drive is added to a raid1 using older tools (mdadm-1.x or raidtools) then it will be included in the array without any resync happening." But I have here: # mdadm --version mdadm - v2.5.6 - 9 November 2006 maybe I stumbled on another bug? -- Janek Kozicki |