From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Phil Turmel Subject: Re: Need help recovering RAID5 array Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 07:38:51 -0400 Message-ID: <4E411C4B.1080200@turmel.org> References: <4E3C0BCA.9000407@uml.edu> <20110806112910.332d450a@notabene.brown> <20110809091214.4a830696@notabene.brown> <4E409B76.5030000@uml.edu> <20110809125549.00c56f57@notabene.brown> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20110809125549.00c56f57@notabene.brown> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: NeilBrown Cc: Stephen Muskiewicz , "linux-raid@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: linux-raid.ids On 08/08/2011 10:55 PM, NeilBrown wrote: > On Mon, 8 Aug 2011 22:29:10 -0400 Stephen Muskiewicz wrote: >> This does lead to a question: Do you recommend (and is it safe on CentOS >> 5.5?) for me to use the updated (3.2.2 with your patch) version of mdadm >> going forward in place of the CentOS version (2.6.9)? > > I wouldn't kept that patch. It was a little hack to get your array working > again. I wouldn't recommend using it without expert advice... > > Other than that ... 3.2.2 certainly fixes bug and adds features over 2.6.9, > but maybe it adds some bugs too... I would say that it is safe, but probably > not really necessary. > i.e. up to you :-) Let me add a reason to stick with 2.6.9: it has different defaults for metadata reserved space. If all hell breaks loose, and you find you need to do "mdadm --create --assume-clean" or some variant as part of your recovery efforts, you'll need the older version to get an identical layout. Phil