No! It's a bug. It's been reported here before. I have a RAID5 with 14
disks and 1 spare. It reports Raid devices 14, Total 13, Active 14, working
12, failed 1 and spare 1. I should have data loss! But nothing is wrong,
see below.
Guy
# mdadm -D /dev/md2
/dev/md2:
Version : 00.90.00
Creation Time : Fri Dec 12 17:29:50 2003
Raid Level : raid5
Array Size : 230980672 (220.28 GiB 236.57 GB)
Device Size : 17767744 (16.94 GiB 18.24 GB)
Raid Devices : 14
Total Devices : 13
Preferred Minor : 2
Persistence : Superblock is persistent
Update Time : Mon Mar 1 20:32:41 2004
State : dirty, no-errors
Active Devices : 14
Working Devices : 12
Failed Devices : 1
Spare Devices : 1
Layout : left-symmetric
Chunk Size : 64K
Number Major Minor RaidDevice State
0 8 49 0 active sync /dev/sdd1
1 8 161 1 active sync /dev/sdk1
2 8 65 2 active sync /dev/sde1
3 8 177 3 active sync /dev/sdl1
4 8 81 4 active sync /dev/sdf1
5 8 193 5 active sync /dev/sdm1
6 8 97 6 active sync /dev/sdg1
7 8 209 7 active sync /dev/sdn1
8 8 113 8 active sync /dev/sdh1
9 8 225 9 active sync /dev/sdo1
10 8 129 10 active sync /dev/sdi1
11 8 241 11 active sync /dev/sdp1
12 8 145 12 active sync /dev/sdj1
13 65 1 13 active sync /dev/sdq1
14 8 33 14 /dev/sdc1
UUID : 8357a389:8853c2d1:f160d155:6b4e1b99
# cat /proc/mdstat
Personalities : [raid0] [raid1] [raid5]
read_ahead 1024 sectors
md2 : active raid5 sdc1[14] sdq1[13] sdj1[12] sdp1[11] sdi1[10] sdo1[9]
sdh1[8] sdn1[7] sdg1[6] sdm1[5] sdf1[4] sdl1[3] sde1[2] sdk1[1] sdd1[0]
230980672 blocks level 5, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [14/14]
[UUUUUUUUUUUUUU]
md0 : active raid1 sdb1[1] sda1[0]
264960 blocks [2/2] [UU]
md1 : active raid1 sdb2[1] sda2[0]
17510784 blocks [2/2] [UU]
unused devices: <none>
-----Original Message-----
From: linux-raid-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:linux-raid-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mario 'BitKoenig'
Holbe
Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 10:00 AM
To: linux-raid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: bug in mdadm?
Bernd Schubert <Bernd.Schubert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> for one of our raid1 devices 'mdadm -D' reports 3 devices and 1
> failed device, though I'm pretty sure that I specified
> '--raid-devices=2' when I created that raid-array.
[...]
> Raid Devices : 2
You did.
> Total Devices : 3
Plus one spare disk.
> Active Devices : 2
> Working Devices : 2
Two mirrors up and running.
> Failed Devices : 1
> Spare Devices : 0
One disk failed or out-of-sync or something like that.
[moved from above]
> One another system, 'mdadm -D' reports the correct numbers.
What do you expect as 'correct'?
Did you move *all* the physical disks of the one
system to the other?
Did you also move your mdadm.conf (if you didn't
move the disk with the root-fs), if there is one?
> The data from /proc/mdstat report the correct numbers.
> Any ideas whats the reason for this? Is it a bug in mdadm or has the
> superblock really wrong data?
Well, perhaps there is any partition somewhere else
on your disks with the same UUID, which gets merged
to md0 as spare disk: Did you remove a mirror from
md0 in the past and add another one?
Another chance could be you are using mdadm's 'spare
groups'. I don't know, what mdadm does show in this
case.
regards,
Mario
--
reich sein heisst nicht, einen Ferrari zu kaufen, sondern einen zu
verbrennen
Dietmar Wischmeier
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
