On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 14:41:52 -0700 Troy Telford <ttelford.groups@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2011-12-14 19:01:01 +0000, Phil Turmel said: > > > Hi Troy, > > > > On 12/13/2011 05:42 PM, Troy Telford wrote: > > > > Let me guess: You have version 0.90 superblock, and sdl1 covers the > > whole device? > > sdl1 does cover the entire device, but I'm fairly certain I do not have > a 0.90 superblock (Unless 0.90 was the standard version for Linux 2.6 > about two years ago.) It is mdadm that determines the superblock rather than the kernel, but you definitely have 0.90 superblocks - I can tell from the /proc/mdstat output (it doesn't list a version, so it must be 0.90). > > Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to get my current superblock version: > $ sudo mdadm --examine /dev/md2 > mdadm: No md superblock detected on /dev/md2. > > I find it curious that I can't detect the superblock for the MD device, > even though the device is up, active, and working. The array doesn't have a superblock. Each member device does. mdadm --examine /dev/sdl1 > > > Short term, change your mdadm.conf to only accept device names that end > > with a digit. Like so: > > > > DEVICE /dev/sd[a-z][1-9] > > OK, I'll give that a whirl. For the record, it was DEVICE partitions > previously. > > > Then rebuild your initramfs to include the new mdadm.conf. > > > > Long term, rebuild your array with v1.x metadata. > > You know, I was hoping to be able to wait until btrfs handles RAID-6 > (or "raid-z") arrays by the time I had to rebuild the array. I guess > I'm not that lucky. You don't really need to rebuild the array. Just change the DEVICE line and all will be happy. (but I advise you never to plan on using software that hasn't be released yet - that way lies madness). NeilBrown
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
