From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Piergiorgio Sartor Subject: Re: Device role question Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:38:24 +0100 Message-ID: <20100228103824.GB2296@lazy.lzy> References: <20100226142331.GA2328@lazy.lzy> <4877c76c1002262156k6675877am79a7da9b63446dc7@mail.gmail.com> <20100227080845.GA2287@lazy.lzy> <4877c76c1002270055o2ebc038ag52e0b9a8f5b407d@mail.gmail.com> <20100227091027.GA3510@lazy.lzy> <4877c76c1002271934m3db22c7ahc93d3d4129df7d22@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4877c76c1002271934m3db22c7ahc93d3d4129df7d22@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Michael Evans Cc: Piergiorgio Sartor , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Hi, > What's confusing is that /proc/mdadm lists it as an active member > (synced to data) but that the device does not match. Maybe you can > stop/restart the array? thank for the support. I tried to stop/start, incremental assembly (in different order), fail/remove/add of both components (once at time, of course), but this information seems to be stable. The only thing I did not try was to fail/remove one HDD, zero the superblock, add it again. Anyway, it seems Neil explained this is a bug of mdadm, so I hope this will be fixed in the next Fedora upgrade. Thanks again, bye, -- piergiorgio