Neil Brown (neilb@xxxxxxx) wrote on 21 January 2008 14:09: >As you note, sda4 says that it thinks slot 1 is still active/sync, but >it doesn't seem to know which device should go there either. >However that does indicate that slot 3 failed first and slot 1 failed >later. So if we have candidates for both, slot 1 is probably more >uptodate. I was going home (it's 1h20 past midnight) when I remembered and came back to write that assembling with /dev/sda4 /dev/sdb4 /dev/sdc4 missing /dev/sde4 "works", which confirms what you say. Adding sdd4 back it starts resyncing, however since sdb4 has errors, a double fault happens again and the array fails. >You need to tell mdadm what goes where by creating the array. >e.g. if you think that sdb4 is adequately reliable and that it was in >slot 1, then > > mdadm -C /dev/md3 -l5 -n5 -c 128 /dev/sda4 /dev/sdb4 /dev/sdc4 missing /dev/sde4 > >alternately if you think it best to use sdd, and it was in slot 3, >then > > mdadm -C /dev/md3 -l5 -n5 -c 128 /dev/sda4 missing /dev/sdc4 /dev/sdd4 /dev/sde4 > >would be the command to use. > >Note that this command will not touch any data. It will just >overwrite the superblock and assemble the array. >You can then 'fsck' or whatever to confirm that the data looks good. I have two possibilities: use sdd4 in slot 3 or the dump of sdb4 in another disk in slot 1. This copy is more recent but has errors. Is it possible to know which would be "less bad" before I fsck? - 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
