Guy said:
> You did not use the "missing" keyword. You just created a 3 disk array.
> If
> your array had 3 disks, you should have listed 2 of them and the "missing"
> keyword for the third.
Hrm. Ok. I should have read the man page before proceeding. Well, it's
official. I am an idiot.
> Why did you add a spare(hde1)?
See above.
> You should have done something like this:
> mdadm --create /dev/md0 --level=5 --raid-devices=4 /dev/hdg1 /dev/hdd1
> /dev/hdc1 missing
# mdadm --create /dev/md0 --level=5 --raid-devices=4 /dev/hdg1 /dev/hdd1
/dev/hdc1 missing
mdadm: /dev/hdg1 appears to be part of a raid array:
level=5 devices=3 ctime=Wed Jul 7 08:11:18 2004
mdadm: /dev/hdd1 appears to be part of a raid array:
level=5 devices=3 ctime=Wed Jul 7 08:11:18 2004
mdadm: /dev/hdc1 appears to be part of a raid array:
level=5 devices=3 ctime=Wed Jul 7 08:11:18 2004
Continue creating array? n
Yeah, it looks like I screwed the pooch on this one. The array was
composed of hd[gdc] with hde as the spare. I managed to stop the rebuild
at 1.1% complete. I guess at this point I don't have anything to lose by
letting it rebuild. Would there be any benefit to omitting hdg and
letting it rebuild from hd[cde]? Like this:
# mdadm --create /dev/md0 --level=5 --raid-devices=4 /dev/hdd1 /dev/hdc1
/dev/hde1 missing
> Do this command to determine which disk is being re-built:
> cat /proc/mdadm
I do not have a /proc/mdadm. All I have is /proc/mdstat.
Thanks!
--
Steve
-
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
