From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jonathan Subject: Re: data recovery on raid5 Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 13:55:29 -0700 Message-ID: <444A9841.8070202@abhost.net> References: <444A7C99.80006@abhost.net> <62b0912f0604221248s653843bfx363f346c7ef31a94@mail.gmail.com> <444A8D04.20809@abhost.net> <62b0912f0604221322k25c96c37q2bee9361a6316c1b@mail.gmail.com> <444A92CF.70401@abhost.net> <62b0912f0604221338m6b9fc06do61d78ffa622523bc@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <62b0912f0604221338m6b9fc06do61d78ffa622523bc@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids hazel /virtual # mdadm -C /dev/md0 -c 32 -n 4 -l 5 --parity=left-asymmetric missing /dev/etherd/e0.[023] mdadm: /dev/etherd/e0.0 appears to be part of a raid array: level=5 devices=4 ctime=Sat Apr 22 13:25:40 2006 mdadm: /dev/etherd/e0.2 appears to be part of a raid array: level=5 devices=4 ctime=Sat Apr 22 13:25:40 2006 mdadm: /dev/etherd/e0.3 appears to contain an ext2fs file system size=720300416K mtime=Wed Oct 5 16:39:28 2005 mdadm: /dev/etherd/e0.3 appears to be part of a raid array: level=5 devices=4 ctime=Sat Apr 22 13:25:40 2006 Continue creating array? y mdadm: array /dev/md0 started. hazel /virtual # mount -t ext2 -r /dev/md0 /md0 hazel /virtual # df -H Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/hda4 67G 5.8G 58G 10% / udev 526M 177k 526M 1% /dev /dev/hda3 8.1G 34M 7.7G 1% /tmp none 526M 0 526M 0% /dev/shm /dev/md1 591G 11G 551G 2% /virtual /dev/md0 591G 54G 507G 10% /md0 now I'm doing a: (cd /md0 && tar cf - . ) | (cd /virtual/recover/ && tar xvfp -) thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you Molle Bestefich wrote: >Jonathan wrote: > > >>Well, the block sizes are back to 32k now, but I still had no luck >>mounting /dev/md0 once I created the array. >> >> > >Ahem, I missed something. >Sorry, the 'a' was hard to spot. > >Your array used layout : left-asymmetric, while the superblock you've >just created has layout: left-symmetric. > >Try again, but add the option "--parity=left-asymmetric" >