On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 10:38 PM, Keld Simonsen <keld@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 10:06:38PM +0000, Kristleifur Daðason wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 6:50 PM, Keld Simonsen <keld@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 04:25:02PM +0000, Kristleifur Daðason wrote: >> >> On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 1:19 AM, Keld Simonsen <keld@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 03:57:58AM +0100, Keld Simonsen wrote: >> >> > Hi >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > can anybody help me with this? I am stuck with recovering my system here. >> >> > is it a sensible thing ro do? >> >> > >> >> > best regards >> >> > keld >> >> > >> >> >> Hi >> >> >> >> >> >> I got 2 arrays in error of the raid10 type. >> >> >> >> >> >> I think this is because my motherboard died, and then the fs were >> >> >> corrupted. >> >> >> >> >> >> My thoughts were that actually one of the copies could be correct. >> >> >> So I would like to try out the consistency of each part of the raid10 >> >> >> (it is 2-partition arrays), and then if I find one that is consistent, then >> >> >> resync the faulty one with the good one. >> >> >> >> >> >> How do I do this? >> >> >> >> >> >> it seems that I cannot just assemble an array with a missing part. >> >> >> If I assemble the full array, is there then a risk of the bad one >> >> >> corrupting the good one? And can I declare one of the disks faulty >> >> >> then test the other one, then declare nbr 2 disk for faulty and >> >> >> declare the first one as good? >> >> >> >> >> >> I dont see anything on the wiki on this. >> >> >> >> >> >> best regards >> >> >> keld >> >> > -- >> >> > 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 >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> I wish I could help more, but check out this from the mdadm man page: >> >> >> >> To create a "degraded" array in which some devices are missing, >> >> simply give >> >> the word "missing" in place of a device name. This will >> >> cause mdadm to >> >> leave the corresponding slot in the array empty. For a >> >> RAID4 or RAID5 >> >> array at most one slot can be "missing"; for a RAID6 array >> >> at most two >> >> slots. For a RAID1 array, only one real device needs to be >> >> given. All of >> >> the others can be "missing". >> > >> > I tried missing, but mdadm said that it could not find missing as a device, >> > for assemble mode. >> > >> > best regards >> > keld >> > >> >> Hmmm ... I guess your version of mdadm may be too old. Which version >> do you have? > > v2.5.3 > > best regards > keld > Well, that's at least kind of old ... might be worth a build. Luckily, mdadm is pretty simple to compile. As a heuristic: Does your "man mdadm" page state that you can use the 'missing' option? If it does, well, your mdadm ought to support it too ... -- 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
