On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 10:43:34PM +0200, artificial11000 wrote: > Hi guys, > > thanks for your effort. No problem. > Meanwhile I had to start over and format the whole device. > I have a backup. Allthough it is not really up to date, I can work with it. Good. So you already did something very right. Arno > Thanks again > > artificial > > On 04/08/2012 10:35 PM, Arno Wagner wrote: > >On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 06:23:22PM +0200, artificial11000 wrote: > >>Hi, > >> > >>as I noticed that I can't access the device, I recreated the raid manually. > >> mdadm --create --level=5 -n 3 /dev/md127 /dev/sdb /dev/sdc /dev/sdd > >> > >>Could this damage the key-slot? > >>Are the metadata of the RAID relevant to this? > >>I read that old versions of mdadm created RAIDs with metadata=0.90 > >>and the newer versions with metadata=1.20. > > > >This may be an additional problem or the only problem. Metadata 0.90 > >is at the end of the device. Metadata 1.20 is 4k from the start of > >the device. The other versions are in still other places. > >(I have no idea what messed up process created these thorougly > >insane changes.) > > > >So, yes, 4k offset is right in the first key-stripe. If so, > >then your data is pemanently gone unless you have a header-backup. > >In this case it is also possible that the array actually assembled > >right and the problem is _only_ the new raid metadata block. > > > >Arno > > > _______________________________________________ > dm-crypt mailing list > dm-crypt@xxxxxxxx > http://www.saout.de/mailman/listinfo/dm-crypt > -- Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email: arno@xxxxxxxxxxx GnuPG: ID: 1E25338F FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F ---- One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision. -- Bertrand Russell _______________________________________________ dm-crypt mailing list dm-crypt@xxxxxxxx http://www.saout.de/mailman/listinfo/dm-crypt
