On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 4:10 AM, Michael Evans <mjevans1983@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Kristleifur Daðason > <kristleifur@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I wish to convert my 3-drive RAID-5 array to a 6-drive RAID-6. I'm on >> Linux 2.6.32.2 and have mdadm version 3.1.1 with the 32-bit-array-size >> patch from here: http://osdir.com/ml/linux-raid/2009-11/msg00534.html >> >> I have three live drives and three spares added to the array. When I >> initialize the command, mdadm does the initial checks and aborts with >> a "cannot set device shape" without doing anything to the array. >> >> Following are some md stats and growth command output: >> >> ___ >> >> $ cat /proc/mdstat >> Personalities : [linear] [multipath] [raid0] [raid1] [raid6] [raid5] >> [raid4] [raid10] >> md_d1 : active raid5 sdd1[6](S) sdc1[5](S) sdb1[4](S) sdf1[1] sde1[0] sdl1[3] >> 2930078720 blocks super 1.1 level 5, 256k chunk, algorithm 2 [3/3] [UUU] >> bitmap: 1/350 pages [4KB], 2048KB chunk >> >> $ mdadm --detail --scan >> ARRAY /dev/md/d1 metadata=1.01 spares=3 name=mamma:d1 >> UUID=da547022:042a6f68:d5fe251e:5e89f263 >> >> $ mdadm --grow /dev/md_d1 --level=6 --raid-devices=6 >> --backup-file=/root/backup.md1_to_r6 >> mdadm: metadata format 1.10 unknown, ignored. >> mdadm: metadata format 1.10 unknown, ignored. >> mdadm level of /dev/md_d1 changed to raid6 >> mdadm: Need to backup 1024K of critical section.. >> mdadm: Cannot set device shape for /dev/md_d1 >> mdadm: aborting level change >> ___ >> >> >> Three questions - >> >> 1. What does the stuff about "metadata format 1.10 unknown" mean? >> Notice the "super 1.1" vs. "metadata 1.01" vs. "metadata format 1.10" >> disrepancy between mdsat, --detail and --grow output. >> >> 2. Am I doing something wrong? :) >> >> 3. How can I get more info about what is causing the failure to >> initialize the growth? >> >> Thanks! >> >> -- Kristleifur >> >> >> (P.s., I'm cc-ing this directly to Neil Brown as the maintainer of >> mdadm. I hope that isn't rude of me.) >> -- > > > I thought there were three metadata variants for 1.x: 1.0 1.1 and 1.2 > Maybe the extra 1 or 0 at the end refers to a reshape in progress? > Thanks for the reply. FWIW, I intended the array to have metadata format 1.1 when I created it. I've noticed these "1.01" messages before, so I believe it's not due to the reshape. However, I'm thinking the funny metadata might be interfering with the reshape somehow. Hmm ... -- 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
