It looks like my old mdadm (2.6.7.1, ubuntu 10.10) has having issues and with the newer version (3.2.1) I needed to use force to get it back up. Its back up now with 11 of 13 disks, but i've added a replacement disk, so in about 20 hours I'll be back up to 12 of 13. Thanks for the help, I've learned a lot on this list and am glad I was able to find it. Thanks -Bryan On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 10:12 PM, NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, 1 Apr 2012 20:44:17 -0400 Bryan Bush <bbushvt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> my mdadm version is >> root@diamond:/# mdadm -V >> mdadm - v2.6.7.1 - 15th October 2008 > > That's rather old... I'm not surprised that it doesn't cope with assembling > arrays that are in the middle of being reshaped. > >>> >> When I use mdadm 3.2.1 I get >> root@diamond:~/mdadm/mdadm-3.2.1# ./mdadm -A --verbose /dev/md1 >> /dev/sd[onjlkuhedcb]1 >> mdadm: looking for devices for /dev/md1 >> mdadm: /dev/sdb1 is identified as a member of /dev/md1, slot 4. >> mdadm: /dev/sdc1 is identified as a member of /dev/md1, slot 5. >> mdadm: /dev/sdd1 is identified as a member of /dev/md1, slot 6. >> mdadm: /dev/sde1 is identified as a member of /dev/md1, slot 7. >> mdadm: /dev/sdh1 is identified as a member of /dev/md1, slot 12. >> mdadm: /dev/sdj1 is identified as a member of /dev/md1, slot 10. >> mdadm: /dev/sdk1 is identified as a member of /dev/md1, slot 8. >> mdadm: /dev/sdl1 is identified as a member of /dev/md1, slot 0. >> mdadm: /dev/sdn1 is identified as a member of /dev/md1, slot 2. >> mdadm: /dev/sdo1 is identified as a member of /dev/md1, slot 3. >> mdadm: device 8 in /dev/md1 has wrong state in superblock, but >> /dev/sdk1 seems ok >> mdadm: device 10 in /dev/md1 has wrong state in superblock, but >> /dev/sdj1 seems ok >> mdadm: device 12 in /dev/md1 has wrong state in superblock, but >> /dev/sdh1 seems ok >> mdadm: no uptodate device for slot 1 of /dev/md1 >> mdadm: added /dev/sdn1 to /dev/md1 as 2 >> mdadm: added /dev/sdo1 to /dev/md1 as 3 >> mdadm: added /dev/sdb1 to /dev/md1 as 4 >> mdadm: added /dev/sdc1 to /dev/md1 as 5 >> mdadm: added /dev/sdd1 to /dev/md1 as 6 >> mdadm: added /dev/sde1 to /dev/md1 as 7 >> mdadm: added /dev/sdk1 to /dev/md1 as 8 >> mdadm: no uptodate device for slot 9 of /dev/md1 >> mdadm: added /dev/sdj1 to /dev/md1 as 10 >> mdadm: no uptodate device for slot 11 of /dev/md1 >> mdadm: added /dev/sdh1 to /dev/md1 as 12 >> mdadm: added /dev/sdl1 to /dev/md1 as 0 >> mdadm: /dev/md1 assembled from 10 drives - not enough to start the array. > > That looks a lot more sensible. > So that array expects 13 drives, but you only have 10. > You'll need to find at least 1 more (preferably 3 more) to have any chance of > success. > >> >> >> Should I try to force it? Worried it might make things worse. > > force won't help until you find those other devices. > > 'force' is unlikely to make things worse. It does the best it can. The > reason that you need to actually give "--force" (rather than mdadm always > doing the best it case) is that you need to know that something has gone > wrong and so not to trust the contents of the array until you have verified > that your data is safe (most of it will be, but no promises). > > NeilBrown > > -- 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
