From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "bart@ardistech.com" Subject: Re: RAID5 attempt rebuilding despite being incomplete Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 10:20:49 +0200 Message-ID: <42BBC261.1408AA23@ardistech.com> References: <42BA9D87.B6808FFC@ardistech.com> <17082.46466.985928.971926@cse.unsw.edu.au> <42BABCDD.F4D0191E@ardistech.com> <17083.25767.665831.24231@cse.unsw.edu.au> Reply-To: bart@ardistech.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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 Hi Neil, > I cannot find the patch I was thinking of to check when it went in, > but I have just tested various failure scenarios on 2.6.12-rc3-mm3 and > it handles them all properly. > > If you could try 2.6.12 and confirm, I would appreciate it. > Ok, will try with 2.6.12 > I noticed that the raid5 was resyncing rather than recovering. > Normally when you create a raid5 with mdadm it will recover as this is > faster than resync. Did you create the array with '-f' ?? > No, but the '--run' flag was set. I noticed that when ommiting the '--run' flag (like 'mdadm --create /dev/md3 --level=5 --raid-devices=4 /dev/hd[abef]4') the array goes into recovery straight away, so probably the '--run' flag forces a '-f'. It also looks like the '--detail --test' flag of mdadm (to obtain the array status as return value) does not work (always returns 0). I'll start a different thread on that when I tested it further. Cheers, Bart