On Thursday January 10, jed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > (Sorry- yes it looks like I posted an incorrect dmesg extract) This still doesn't seem to match your description. I see: > [ 41.247389] md: bind<sdf1> > [ 41.247584] md: bind<sdb1> > [ 41.247787] md: bind<sda1> > [ 41.247971] md: bind<sdc1> > [ 41.248151] md: bind<sdg1> > [ 41.248325] md: bind<sde1> > [ 41.256718] raid5: device sde1 operational as raid disk 0 > [ 41.256771] raid5: device sdc1 operational as raid disk 4 > [ 41.256821] raid5: device sda1 operational as raid disk 3 > [ 41.256870] raid5: device sdb1 operational as raid disk 2 > [ 41.256919] raid5: device sdf1 operational as raid disk 1 > [ 41.257426] raid5: allocated 5245kB for md0 > [ 41.257476] raid5: raid level 5 set md0 active with 5 out of 5 > devices, algorithm 2 which looks like 'md0' started with 5 of 5 drives, plus g1 is there as a spare. And > [ 41.312250] md: bind<sdf2> > [ 41.312476] md: bind<sdb2> > [ 41.312711] md: bind<sdg2> > [ 41.312922] md: bind<sdc2> > [ 41.313138] md: bind<sda2> > [ 41.313343] md: bind<sde2> > [ 41.313452] md: md1: raid array is not clean -- starting background > reconstruction > [ 41.322189] raid5: device sde2 operational as raid disk 0 > [ 41.322243] raid5: device sdc2 operational as raid disk 4 > [ 41.322292] raid5: device sdg2 operational as raid disk 3 > [ 41.322342] raid5: device sdb2 operational as raid disk 2 > [ 41.322391] raid5: device sdf2 operational as raid disk 1 > [ 41.322823] raid5: allocated 5245kB for md1 > [ 41.322872] raid5: raid level 5 set md1 active with 5 out of 5 > devices, algorithm 2 md1 also assembled with 5/5 drives and sda2 as a spare. This one was not shut down cleanly so it started a resync. But there is not evidence of anything starting degraded. ???? 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
