On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 16:06, Juri Haberland wrote:
> Jean-Rene Cormier <jean-rene.cormier@cipanb.ca> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 15:58, Juri Haberland wrote:
>
> > I use 2.4.22 so I guess this patch is not for me. When I get home
> > tonight I'll try to re-add the disk to the array and see what it does.
>
> If it doesn't work please also post the relevant part of /proc/mdstat.
Well I re-added the drive and it marked it as a spare.
Here's the output of mdadm --detail /dev/md0:
/dev/md0:
Version : 00.90.00
Creation Time : Sat Mar 1 22:55:38 2003
Raid Level : raid1
Array Size : 60051456 (57.27 GiB 61.49 GB)
Device Size : 60051456 (57.27 GiB 61.49 GB)
Raid Devices : 2
Total Devices : 2
Preferred Minor : 0
Persistence : Superblock is persistent
Update Time : Wed Nov 12 22:33:37 2003
State : dirty, no-errors
Active Devices : 1
Working Devices : 2
Failed Devices : 0
Spare Devices : 2
Number Major Minor RaidDevice State
0 33 1 0 active sync /dev/hde1
1 0 0 1 faulty removed
2 34 1 2 spare /dev/hdg1
UUID : 97cdd679:0b676ca4:3d889120:566d5967
Events : 0.30
And here's my /proc/mdstat:
Personalities : [raid1] [raid5]
read_ahead 1024 sectors
md0 : active raid1 hdg1[2] hde1[0]
60051456 blocks [2/1] [U_]
[=>...................] recovery = 6.9% (4162176/60051456)
finish=30.2min speed=30762K/sec
unused devices: <none>
It seems to be rebuilding but will it stay marked as a spare drive or
will it take over the main faulty drive after it's done rebuilding?
Thanks
Jean-Rene Cormier
-
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
