From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Simon McNair Subject: Re: Raid 5 Array Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2011 21:09:48 +0100 Message-ID: <4D97828C.8050806@gmail.com> References: <4D977279.30107@gmail.com> Reply-To: simonmcnair@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: Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Marcus Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids cc'd the list back in as I'm not an md guru. I did a search for mdadm raid 50 and this looked the most appropriate. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DkonSDG8jUMC&pg=PT116&lpg=PT116&dq=mdadm+raid+50&source=bl&ots=Ekw6NCiXqR&sig=edBYg9Gtd5RXyuUU0PeSpHvS7pM&hl=en&ei=9YGXTYyeBcGFhQe90ojpCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=mdadm%20raid%2050&f=false Simon On 02/04/2011 20:38, Marcus wrote: > Yes I used --zero-superblock this time. I think that was my problem > last time it kept detecting the drives at random and creating odd > arrays. This time I am not sure what my problem is. I got two drives > back up so I have my data back but I tried getting the two raid0 > drives to become part of the raid5 twice so far and each time fdisk -l > shows the wrong sizes for the raids when they are combine the first > time it showed the small raid as 1TB which is the size of the big raid > the second time it showed the big raid as 750GB which is the size of > the small array. Some how the joining of the two raids is corrupting > the headers and reporting wrong information. > > Is there a proper procedure for creating a raid0 to put into a raid5? > last time I created my raid0 and added a partition to the raids and it > automatically dropped the partition and just showed md0 and md1 in the > array instead of md0p1 and md1p1 which was the partition i added to > the array. I have tried adding the partition into the array and I also > tried adding just array into the array. neither method seems to be > working this time. > > On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Simon McNair wrote: >> Hi, >> I'm sure you've tried this, but do you use --zero-superblock before moving >> disks over ? >> >> Simon >> >> On 02/04/2011 19:51, Marcus wrote: >>> I have a raid array this is the second time an upgrade seems to have >>> corrupted the array. >>> >>> I get the following message from dmesg when trying to mount the array >>> [ 372.822199] RAID5 conf printout: >>> [ 372.822202] --- rd:3 wd:3 >>> [ 372.822208] disk 0, o:1, dev:md0 >>> [ 372.822212] disk 1, o:1, dev:sdb1 >>> [ 372.822216] disk 2, o:1, dev:sdc1 >>> [ 372.822305] md2: detected capacity change from 0 to 1000210300928 >>> [ 372.823206] md2: p1 >>> [ 410.783871] EXT4-fs (md2): Couldn't mount because of unsupported >>> optional features (3d1fc20) >>> [ 412.401534] EXT4-fs (md2): Couldn't mount because of unsupported >>> optional features (3d1fc20) >>> >>> I originally had a raid0 md0 with two 160GB drives, a raid0 md1 with >>> 250GB and md0, a raid 5 with a 1.0TB, 500GB, and md1 >>> >>> I swapped out md1 with a new 1TB drive which worked. then i dropped >>> the 500GB and combined it with the 250GB drive to make a 750GB drive >>> >>> The error seems to come when you reintroduce drives that were >>> previously in a raid array into a new raid array. This is the second >>> time I have ended up with the same problem. >>> >>> Any suggestions on how to recover from this or is my only option to >>> reformat everything and start again? >>> -- >>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in >>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html