Re: argh!

[Jon Hardcastle <jonathan.hardcastle@gmail.com>]

On 31 October 2010 00:57, Leslie Rhorer <lrhorer@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> > a new HDD has failed on me during a scrub.... i tried to remove/fail
>> it
>> >> but
>> >> > it kept saying the device was busy. so i forced a reboot.
>
>        BTW, it's better, if you can, to free up the device, rather than
> reboot.  Now that you have rebooted, that's no longer possible.
>
>> >> > I have physically disconnected the drive..
>> >> >
>> >> > can anyone take alook at the examine below and tell me if it is
>> should
>> >> > assemble ok?
>> >> >
>> >> > I tried
>> >> >
>> >> > mdadm --assemble /dev/md4 /dev/sda1 /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdd1 /dev/sde1
>> >> /dev/sdf1
>> >> > /dev/sdg1
>> >>
>> >> I'd try:
>> >>
>> >> mdadm --assemble /dev/md4 /dev/sd{g,a,e}1 missing /dev/sd{d,b,f}1
>> >
>> >
>> >        Yeah, I would, too.  Also, what are the contents of
>> > /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf?  If it is correct, then `mdadm --assemble --scan`
>> > should work.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Hey, yeah I am confused as drives have failed before and it has still
>> assembled. I think it is because it is unclean....
>>
>> Can I ask how did you arrive at the command list?
>
>        Look at the results of --examine.  Every one shows the list of
> drives and their order.
>
>> what is wrong with dbf?
>
>        'No idea.  SMART might give you an idea, or the kernel logs.
>
>> also this is my mdadm.conf
>>
>>
>> DEVICE /dev/sd[abcdefg]1 /dev/hd[ab]1
>>
>> ARRAY /dev/md/4 metadata=0.90 UUID=7438efd1:9e6ca2b5:d6b88274:7003b1d3
>> ARRAY /dev/md/3 metadata=0.90 UUID=a1f24bc9:4e72a820:3a03f7dc:07f9ab98
>> ARRAY /dev/md/2 metadata=0.90 UUID=0642323a:938992ef:b750ab21:e5a55662
>> ARRAY /dev/md/1 metadata=0.90 UUID=d4eeec62:148b3425:3f5e931c:bb3ef499
>
>        --scan may work.  I suggest updating the file with all the array
> members.  Why are all the arrays assembled with 0.90 superblocks?  The 0.90
> superblock has some significant limitations.  They may not be causing you
> grief right now, but they could in the future.  The only arrays I have built
> with 0.90 superblocks are the /boot targets, because GRUB2 does not support
> 1.x superblocks.  I've chosen 1.2 for all the others.
>

Hi,

Thanks for your help. I use 0.90 as that is what there was when the
machine was build ~3yrs ago.. the array has been grown and resized
since then.

Does anyone have a feature list for the superblocks? Why upgrade.....?

Thanks
--
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