From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Fisher Subject: Re: RAID 10 array won't assemble ... spare ... metadata - Disappointing Report Back Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 21:13:28 +0100 Message-ID: <20090418201328.GC18440@davefisher.co.uk> References: <20090417141402.GB27042@davefisher.co.uk> <18921.1283.548260.293728@notabene.brown> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <18921.1283.548260.293728@notabene.brown> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Neil Brown Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 08:38:59AM +1000, Neil Brown wrote: > So: > > mdadm -S /dev/md1 > mdadm -A /dev/md1 -fv /dev/sd[abcde]4 > > and report the result. Output transcribed by hand: mdadm: looking for devices for /dev/md1 mdadm: /dev/sda4 is identified as a member of /dev/md1 slot 0 mdadm: /dev/sdb4 is identified as a member of /dev/md1 slot 1 mdadm: /dev/sdc4 is identified as a member of /dev/md1 slot 2 mdadm: /dev/sdd4 is identified as a member of /dev/md1 slot 3 mdadm: /dev/sde4 is identified as a member of /dev/md1 slot 4 mdadm: forcing event count in /dev/sdb4(1) from 219 upto 221 But when I ran mdadm -E on each of the partitions the counts were competely unchanged, i.e. sd[bcde]4 were still all at 219. sda4 was still at 221 Everything else looked exactly the same, including the summary tables at the end. Any thoughts? Do I need to start/run the array to affect the changes? Dave