Am Sonntag 30 November 2008 schrieb Justin Piszcz: > On Sun, 30 Nov 2008, Wilhelm Meier wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I'm using debian etch with mdadm 2.5.6-9. > > > > I have a md-device /dev/md1000 with two usb-disks as raid1. The > > array is assembled well if the system boots, if I unplug one of > > the disks, the array goes to degraded. Thats all ok. > > > > If I re-plug the usb-disk, udev discovers the device fine, but > > mdadm doesn't start the re-add to the md-array. I have to do this > > but hand. > > > > Is there something missing to make this work automatically? > > > > I tried the mdm-2.6.2 from etch-backports too. Same effect. > > > > Here, if I try to use the --incremental mode, it constructs a new > > (!) array /dev/md/d_1000 instead of adding it to /dev/md1000. > > Thats strange to me. > > > > I thought I got it working some weeks ago (maybe with earlier / > > other versions of mdadm or somme missing other tool), but I can't > > get the puzzle right now. > > > > Any hints? > > -- > > Wilhelm > > -- > > 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 > > Wilhelm, > > As far as I know mdadm never will re-add a > broken/failed/disconnected disk back into the array. Perhaps what > you saw before is on an un-clean shutdown or something similar, > upon reboot the array is checking/re-initializing. That might be, but what is the difference between doing the re-add and re-sync on boot (that's what happens!) or if the drive comes back on a running system. mdadm can surely determine the state/uuid and do this - the same as on reboot. > When you have a failed drive and you re-attach it, it will stay as > a removed unit and you need to remove it and add it manually as you > stated. the only thing I have to do is e.g. mdadm --re-add /dev/md1000 /dev/sdg1 then it starts reconstructing the right way. So, my thought was to do this as part of a udev-rule. But I think this is a common case and therefore there should be a well-known solution > Were you seeing something other than this before? I might be wrong, but I thought it was on debian ... > Justin. > -- > 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 -- Wilhelm -- 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
