Mdadm re-add fails

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi!

I have a 2 disk raid1 data array. As a result of other testing, the device info
in the superblock for one of the partners, /dev/sdc2, ended up being in slot 3
of the device info array: 

[root@typhon ~]# mdadm --detail /dev/md21
/dev/md21:
  Version : 1.2
  Creation Time : Mon May  9 11:19:43 2011
  Raid Level : raid1
  Array Size : 5241844 (5.00 GiB 5.37 GB)
  Used Dev Size : 5241844 (5.00 GiB 5.37 GB)
  Raid Devices : 2
  Total Devices : 2
  Persistence : Superblock is persistent

  Intent Bitmap : Internal

  Update Time : Thu May 12 15:51:50 2011
  State : active
  Active Devices : 2
  Working Devices : 2
  Failed Devices : 0
  Spare Devices : 0

           Name : typhon.mno.stratus.com:21  (local to host typhon.mno.stratus.com)
           UUID : 996d993f:baac367a:8b154ba9:43e56cff
          Events : 687

    Number   Major   Minor   RaidDevice State
-->    3      65       34        0      active sync   /dev/sdc2
        2      65       82        1      active sync   /dev/sdk2

When I remove /dev/sdk2 and then a re-add it back in, the re-add fails:

>> [root@typhon ~]# mdadm /dev/md21 -f /dev/sdk2 -r /dev/sdk2
mdadm: set /dev/sdk2 faulty in /dev/md21
mdadm: hot removed /dev/sdk2 from /dev/md21

>> [root@typhon ~]# mdadm /dev/md21 -a /dev/sdk2
mdadm: /dev/sdk2 reports being an active member for /dev/md21, but a --re-add
fails.
mdadm: not performing --add as that would convert /dev/sdk2 in to a spare.
mdadm: To make this a spare, use "mdadm --zero-superblock /dev/sdk2" first.

I believe the re-add fails because the enough_fd function (util.c) is not searching deep enough into the
dev_info array with this line of code:
   for (i=0; i<array.raid_disks + array.nr_disks; i++)

array.raids_disk = 2 and array/nr_disks = 1, and so for this particular md device, it is only looking at slots 0-2. 
I believe the code needs to be changed to look at all possible dev_info array slots, taking into account the 
version of the superblock (like the Detail function does (Detail.c).  

Do folks agree?

Thanks & regards,
Annemarie

--
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


[Index of Archives]     [Linux RAID Wiki]     [ATA RAID]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Linux Block]     [Linux IDE]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux Hams]     [Device Mapper]     [Device Mapper Cryptographics]     [Kernel]     [Linux Admin]     [Linux Net]     [GFS]     [RPM]     [git]     [Yosemite Forum]


  Powered by Linux