On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 9:49 PM, Gordon Messmer <yinyang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 01/21/2012 05:52 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> I have moved raid sets to other machines (of similar distribution
>> revs) and never had a problem before.
>
> I wouldn't expect you to. If you move volumes other than the boot
> volume, it doesn't matter that they get a new device name.
>
>> In fact I have fairly regularly
>> split raid1 volumes to different machines and re-synced with new
>> mirrors and never had any surprises before. The real issue with this
>> box was that the disks are all swappable and I had used raid with
>> autodetect specifically so I didn't have to track which disk was
>> where. And after booting the live dvd, they became more or less
>> randomly named md devices, with each disk of the set becoming its own
>> md device instead of pairing. Recovering was fairly painful.
>
> Well, you haven't given us enough information to really explain what you
> saw. What I'd expect is that your MD devices were moved to /dev/md126,
> /dev/md127, etc. Those names aren't random; they're sequential,
> reflecting the assigned device minor number starting at minor number
> 126. "dmesg" output might explain why the RAID sets weren't
> assembled... I've never seen that happen.
Yes, they were renamed with those unexpected names. I didn't really
spend much time figuring it out, since I thought things would work
normally when rebooted with the existing 5.x system. They didn't -
the new names stuck, including the ones given to the 'other half' of
each mirror.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
