Okay it seems to work now. I destroyed md0 and recreated it and then just added it to the md2 array without doing any partitioning like I did all the times before. Even when I created my old array I partitioned it but mdadm destroyed the partition automatically. On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Marcus <nexuslite@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I am running a raid 5 only. The raid 0 is to make a number of smaller > drives larger. Because a raid 5 takes the smallest drive and applies > it to all drives. > > The original raid started off as a 26GB raid 5 with a 13GB, 40GB and a > 160GB drive and I have grown it from there to its current size which > is 1TB. > > I bought another 1TB drive yesterday and am trying to combine a 500GB > and a 250GB drive to make a 750GB drive so I can push the raid up > again this time to 1.5TB. > > The last configuration was a raid0 md0 320GB (160GB, 160GB), raid 0 > md1 570GB (md0, 250GB), raid 5 1TB (md1, 500GB, 1.0TB) which has been > extremely stable for the last 3 months but ran out of space. > > The configuration I am trying to achieve is raid0 md0 750GB (250GB, > 500GB) , raid 5 md2 1.5TB (md0, 1.0TB, 1.0TB) > > This started out as an experiment to see if I could do a raid 5 > system. It was originally built with drives I had laying around the > house. Now it is big enough that I have started buying drives for it. > I have gone through many configurations of extra drives to get it > where it is now. I have had 1 catastrophic failure since I started and > that was the last time I made it bigger. I was running on 2 drives one > of them being the md0, md1 configuration and mdadm got confused and > couldn't put md0 and md1 back together to have 2 working drives. I > probably could have corrected the problem if I knew what I know now > but as this is an experimental raid it is a learning process. > > The current problem I am having is every time I try to apply the 750GB > raid drive to the raid 5 it corrupts the headers and 1 of the arrays > report the wrong size. Which causes it not to mount. The only way to > correct the problem seems to be to unplug the two drives that make up > md0 and reboot onto 2 drives then start the process again. I am > currently working on my 3rd attempt to integrate the 750GB raid drive. > Each attempt takes 4 hours to restore the drive so it has been a long > process. I haven't lost the data yet though so I guess I will keep > trying. Hopefully it won't be too corrupt when I am done. > > > > On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Roberto Spadim <roberto@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> why use raid 5,6? raid1 isn´t more secure? >> >> 2011/4/2 Roman Mamedov <rm@xxxxxxxxxx>: >>> On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 22:45:58 +0100 >>> Simon Mcnair <simonmcnair@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>>> 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'. >>> >>> RAID5/6 with some RAID0 (or JBOD) members is what you use when you want to >>> include differently-sized devices into the array: >>> http://louwrentius.com/blog/2008/08/building-a-raid-6-array-of-mixed-drives/ >>> -- >>> With respect, >>> Roman >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Roberto Spadim >> Spadim Technology / SPAEmpresarial >> > -- 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
