From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dragos Subject: Re: assemble vs create an array....... Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 10:17:49 -0500 Message-ID: <4758129D.40600@mpigani.org> References: <474F869D.5040503@mpigani.org> <18255.41044.614676.410107@notabene.brown> <47501D7E.7000804@dgreaves.com> <475552D2.4000802@mpigani.org> <47568DE1.1050108@dgreaves.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <47568DE1.1050108@dgreaves.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: David Greaves Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Thank you. I want to make sure I understand. 1- Does it matter which permutation of drives I use for xfs_repair (as long as it tells me that the Structure needs cleaning)? When it comes to linux I consider myself at intermediate level, but I am a beginner when it comes to raid and filesystem issues. 2- After I do it, assuming that it worked, how do I reintegrate the 'missing' drive while keeping my data? Thank you for you time. Dragos David Greaves wrote: > Dragos wrote: > >> Thank you for your very fast answers. >> >> First I tried 'fsck -n' on the existing array. The answer was that If I >> wanted to check a XFS partition I should use 'xfs_check'. That seems to >> say that my array was partitioned with xfs, not reiserfs. Am I correct? >> >> Then I tried the different permutations: >> mdadm --create /dev/md0 --raid-devices=3 --level=5 missing /dev/sda1 >> /dev/sdb1 >> mount /dev/md0 temp >> mdadm --stop --scan >> >> mdadm --create /dev/md0 --raid-devices=3 --level=5 /dev/sda1 missing >> /dev/sdb1 >> mount /dev/md0 temp >> mdadm --stop --scan >> >> > [etc] > > >> With some arrays mount reported: >> mount: you must specify the filesystem type >> and with others: >> mount: Structure needs cleaning >> >> No choice seems to have been successful. >> > > OK, not as good as you could have hoped for. > > Make sure you have the latest xfs tools. > > you may want to try xfs_repair and you can use the -n (I think - check man page) > option. > > You may need to force it to ignore the log > > David > > > >