Neil, On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 5:25 PM, NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 08:45:33 -0700 Simon Matthews > <simon.d.matthews@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Neil, >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:24 PM, Simon Matthews >> <simon.d.matthews@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Neil, >> > >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:18 PM, NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> mdadm -S /dev/md4 >> >> mdadm -A /dev/md4 /dev/sdc1 /dev/sdd1 --verbose >> > >> > That solved it. The array started. >> >> Do you have any idea why the array did not start when the system >> booted? I also have an md6 on the same hard drives that was created at >> the same time as md4, but md6 started on the boot. >> > > Not really ... I would need to see logs to be at all confident. > > Based on the very limit info I have my best guess is that something - > probably udev - ran > mdadm --incremental /dev/sdc1 > > but didn't run > mdadm --incremental /dev/sdd1 > > I cannot imagine why it would do that though. > > This would have the effect of leaving sdc1 as a member of md4, but md4 still > being inactive. > The system seems to take a long time to start one of the hard drives, with many messages about doing resets. I am going to swap out the mobile rack that the drive is installed in (it is limiting it to 1.5Gbps, instead of connecting at 3Gbps). It still seems odd, because the other arrays that use partitions on that disk start up. Simon -- 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
