From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Veljko Subject: Re: Linear device of two arrays Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2017 12:05:27 +0200 Message-ID: <20170723100518.GA5988@obsidian.example.com> References: <87van15j9b.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <87o9sn232n.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <1eefd627-1aba-a795-05f0-d2106d3a62a3@gmail.com> <87shhyzhg5.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <38e015fa-a07c-8f1a-3a04-384d973966be@gmail.com> <87d18uydir.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <871sp8xeey.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <871sp8xeey.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: NeilBrown Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On 2017-Jul-23 09:03, NeilBrown wrote: > The UUID you give to mount is the UUID of the filesystem, not of the > device (or array) which stores the filesystem. > > One of the problems with use 1.0 metadata (or 0.90) is that the first > component device looks like it contains the same filesystem as the whole > array. I think this is what is causing your confusion. Yes, I mixed up those two. Now is all clear. > This all depends on the details of the particular distro you are using. > You don't, in general, need arrays to be listed in mdadm.conf. A > particular distro could require it though. > > If you run > mdadm -Es > > It will show a sample mdadm.conf which should contain /dev/md/3 - the > new raid10, and /dev/md/4. > You could add those lines to mdadm.conf, then > mdadm --assemble /dev/md/3 > mdadm --assemble /dev/md/4 > and it should get assembled. Then you should be able to mount the large > filesystem successfully. Well, I feel much better now that I do have arrays listed in mdadm.conf and in /dev. Thanks very much for your help, Neil! Regards, Veljko