From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Rabbitson Subject: Re: RAID5 in sync does not populate slots sequentially, shows array as (somewhat) faulty Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 11:52:51 +0100 Message-ID: <47CD2A03.6010408@rabbit.us> References: <47CBD62E.7040608@rabbit.us> <47CD279F.2070500@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <47CD279F.2070500@gmail.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: =?UTF-8?B?VG9yIEFybmUgVmVzdGLDuA==?= Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Tor Arne Vestb=C3=B8 wrote: > The reason I did this was because /dev/sda and /dev/sdb used to be pa= rt=20 > of a RAID1 array, but were now used as system disk and home disk=20 > respectively. I was afraid that mdadm would pick up on some of the=20 > lingering RAID superblocks on those disks when reporting, so I shredd= ed=20 > them both using 'shred -n 1' and reinstalled. >=20 This is irrelevant to 1.x superblocks, and largely insignificant for 0.= 9=20 superblocks (baring some really bizzare cases). In either case mdadm=20 --zero-superblock /dev/XX (possibly executed multiple times) would save= you a=20 lot of disk churning :) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html