From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dylan Distasio Subject: Re: RAID5 -> RAID6 conversion, please help Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 21:04:29 -0400 Message-ID: References: <002a01cc0f68$1c851180$558f3480$@priv.hu> <20110511093155.5b1a203e@notabene.brown> <4DC9CCAF.9010709@crc.id.au> <20110511102116.494bf0fd@notabene.brown> <20110511104730.175372fe@notabene.brown> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20110511104730.175372fe@notabene.brown> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids It's possible I did use different versions but I thought I had upgraded both of them right before the reshapes. Sorry if this is an elementary question, but does writing the 2nd parity block always to the last drive instead of rotating it increase the odds of a total loss of the array since the one specific drive always has the 2nd parity block? If so, do you think normalizing would be worth the risk of something going wrong with that operation? I'm just trying to get a feel for how much of a difference this makes. > mdadm first converts the RAID5 to RAID6 in an instant atomic operatio= n which > results in the "-6" layout. =A0It then starts a restriping process wh= ich > converts the layout. > > If you end up with a -6 layout then something when wrong starting the > restriping process. > > Maybe you used different version of mdadm? =A0There have probably bee= n bugs in > some versions.. > > NeilBrown > > > -- 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