One last thing.... I've never heard of anyone using a raid 05. Why wouldn't you use a RAID50 ? Please can you dish the dirt on what benefit there is ? (I would have thought a raid50 would have been better with no disadvantages ?). I thought that raid10 & 50 were the main ones in use in 'the industry'. Please forgive me if I'm showing my ignorance. Simon On 2 Apr 2011, at 21:09, Simon McNair <simonmcnair@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > cc'd the list back in as I'm not an md guru. > > I did a search for mdadm raid 50 and this looked the most appropriate. > > http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DkonSDG8jUMC&pg=PT116&lpg=PT116&dq=mdadm+raid+50&source=bl&ots=Ekw6NCiXqR&sig=edBYg9Gtd5RXyuUU0PeSpHvS7pM&hl=en&ei=9YGXTYyeBcGFhQe90ojpCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=mdadm%20raid%2050&f=false > > Simon > > On 02/04/2011 20:38, Marcus wrote: >> Yes I used --zero-superblock this time. I think that was my problem >> last time it kept detecting the drives at random and creating odd >> arrays. This time I am not sure what my problem is. I got two drives >> back up so I have my data back but I tried getting the two raid0 >> drives to become part of the raid5 twice so far and each time fdisk -l >> shows the wrong sizes for the raids when they are combine the first >> time it showed the small raid as 1TB which is the size of the big raid >> the second time it showed the big raid as 750GB which is the size of >> the small array. Some how the joining of the two raids is corrupting >> the headers and reporting wrong information. >> >> Is there a proper procedure for creating a raid0 to put into a raid5? >> last time I created my raid0 and added a partition to the raids and it >> automatically dropped the partition and just showed md0 and md1 in the >> array instead of md0p1 and md1p1 which was the partition i added to >> the array. I have tried adding the partition into the array and I also >> tried adding just array into the array. neither method seems to be >> working this time. >> >> On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Simon McNair<simonmcnair@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> I'm sure you've tried this, but do you use --zero-superblock before moving >>> disks over ? >>> >>> Simon >>> >>> On 02/04/2011 19:51, Marcus wrote: >>>> I have a raid array this is the second time an upgrade seems to have >>>> corrupted the array. >>>> >>>> I get the following message from dmesg when trying to mount the array >>>> [ 372.822199] RAID5 conf printout: >>>> [ 372.822202] --- rd:3 wd:3 >>>> [ 372.822208] disk 0, o:1, dev:md0 >>>> [ 372.822212] disk 1, o:1, dev:sdb1 >>>> [ 372.822216] disk 2, o:1, dev:sdc1 >>>> [ 372.822305] md2: detected capacity change from 0 to 1000210300928 >>>> [ 372.823206] md2: p1 >>>> [ 410.783871] EXT4-fs (md2): Couldn't mount because of unsupported >>>> optional features (3d1fc20) >>>> [ 412.401534] EXT4-fs (md2): Couldn't mount because of unsupported >>>> optional features (3d1fc20) >>>> >>>> I originally had a raid0 md0 with two 160GB drives, a raid0 md1 with >>>> 250GB and md0, a raid 5 with a 1.0TB, 500GB, and md1 >>>> >>>> I swapped out md1 with a new 1TB drive which worked. then i dropped >>>> the 500GB and combined it with the 250GB drive to make a 750GB drive >>>> >>>> The error seems to come when you reintroduce drives that were >>>> previously in a raid array into a new raid array. This is the second >>>> time I have ended up with the same problem. >>>> >>>> Any suggestions on how to recover from this or is my only option to >>>> reformat everything and start again? >>>> -- >>>> 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 -- 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
