Re: MD or MDADM bug?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Friday September 2, dstrang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >
> > Sorry.  Add
> >    -e 1
> 
> Well, I'm quite happy to report --- that worked!

Excellent!

> 
> So, once I get the bad drive replaced; and the array re-synced -- will I 
> want to stop the array, and execute:
> 
> mdadm -C /dev/md0 -e1 -l5 -n28 -c 128 --name=md/md0 -p la /dev/sd[a-z] 
> /dev/sda[ab]
> 
> Just so I don't have a problem with a disk 'not really' being part of the 
> array? IE; mdadm: /dev/sdm is identified as a member of /dev/md0,
> slot -1.

That shouldn't be necessary.  Providing you are using mdadm-2.0, you
should just be able to --add the drive and everything should work
fine.


> 
> Also, most of the drives -- have no partitions on them (ie; cfdisk 
> /dev/sda) -- Can I add them and set the type to FD so it will autodetect the 
> raid? Or must I do that prior to raid creation?

Type FD doesn't work with version-1 superblocks.  The kernel will not
auto-assemble them at all.  Just use mdadm to assemble them (in an
rc.d script).

NeilBrown
-
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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux RAID Wiki]     [ATA RAID]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Linux Block]     [Linux IDE]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux Hams]     [Device Mapper]     [Device Mapper Cryptographics]     [Kernel]     [Linux Admin]     [Linux Net]     [GFS]     [RPM]     [git]     [Yosemite Forum]


  Powered by Linux