On 31 October 2010 00:57, Leslie Rhorer <lrhorer@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> > a new HDD has failed on me during a scrub.... i tried to remove/fail
>> it
>> >> but
>> >> > it kept saying the device was busy. so i forced a reboot.
>
> BTW, it's better, if you can, to free up the device, rather than
> reboot. Now that you have rebooted, that's no longer possible.
>
>> >> > I have physically disconnected the drive..
>> >> >
>> >> > can anyone take alook at the examine below and tell me if it is
>> should
>> >> > assemble ok?
>> >> >
>> >> > I tried
>> >> >
>> >> > mdadm --assemble /dev/md4 /dev/sda1 /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdd1 /dev/sde1
>> >> /dev/sdf1
>> >> > /dev/sdg1
>> >>
>> >> I'd try:
>> >>
>> >> mdadm --assemble /dev/md4 /dev/sd{g,a,e}1 missing /dev/sd{d,b,f}1
>> >
>> >
>> > Yeah, I would, too. Also, what are the contents of
>> > /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf? If it is correct, then `mdadm --assemble --scan`
>> > should work.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Hey, yeah I am confused as drives have failed before and it has still
>> assembled. I think it is because it is unclean....
>>
>> Can I ask how did you arrive at the command list?
>
> Look at the results of --examine. Every one shows the list of
> drives and their order.
>
>> what is wrong with dbf?
>
> 'No idea. SMART might give you an idea, or the kernel logs.
>
>> also this is my mdadm.conf
>>
>>
>> DEVICE /dev/sd[abcdefg]1 /dev/hd[ab]1
>>
>> ARRAY /dev/md/4 metadata=0.90 UUID=7438efd1:9e6ca2b5:d6b88274:7003b1d3
>> ARRAY /dev/md/3 metadata=0.90 UUID=a1f24bc9:4e72a820:3a03f7dc:07f9ab98
>> ARRAY /dev/md/2 metadata=0.90 UUID=0642323a:938992ef:b750ab21:e5a55662
>> ARRAY /dev/md/1 metadata=0.90 UUID=d4eeec62:148b3425:3f5e931c:bb3ef499
>
> --scan may work. I suggest updating the file with all the array
> members. Why are all the arrays assembled with 0.90 superblocks? The 0.90
> superblock has some significant limitations. They may not be causing you
> grief right now, but they could in the future. The only arrays I have built
> with 0.90 superblocks are the /boot targets, because GRUB2 does not support
> 1.x superblocks. I've chosen 1.2 for all the others.
>
Hi,
Thanks for your help. I use 0.90 as that is what there was when the
machine was build ~3yrs ago.. the array has been grown and resized
since then.
Does anyone have a feature list for the superblocks? Why upgrade.....?
Thanks
--
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
