I was already terrified of screwing things up -- now I'm afraid of
making things worse
based on what was posted before is this a sensible thing to try?
mdadm -C /dev/md0 -c 32 -n 4 -l 5 missing /dev/etherd/e0.[023]
Is what I've done to the superblock size recoverable?
I don't understand how mdadm --assemble would know what to do, which is
why I didn't try it initially. That said, obviouly my lack of
understanding isn't helping one bit.
I don't think I can afford a penny per byte, but I'd happy part with
hundreds of dollars to get the data back. I would really like someone
with more knowledge than me to hold my hand before I continue to make
things worse.
help please - support@xxxxxxxxxx
-- Jonathan
Molle Bestefich wrote:
Jonathan wrote:
# mdadm -C /dev/md0 -n 4 -l 5 missing /dev/etherd/e0.[023]
I think you should have tried "mdadm --assemble --force" first, as I
proposed earlier.
By doing the above, you have effectively replaced your version 0.9.0
superblocks with version 0.9.2. I don't know if version 0.9.2
superblocks are larger than 0.9.0, Neil hasn't responded to that yet.
Potentially hazardous, who knows.
Anyway.
This is from your old superblock as described by Sam Hopkins:
/dev/etherd/<blah>:
Chunk Size : 32K
This is from what you've just posted:
/dev/etherd/<blah>:
Chunk Size : 64K
If I were you, I'd recreate your superblocks now, but with the correct
chunk size (use -c).
We'll be happy to pay you for your services.
I'll be modest and charge you a penny per byte of data recovered, ho hum.
-
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
