On Sat, 4 May 2013 18:30:06 +0200 Piergiorgio Sartor <piergiorgio.sartor@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Rudy, > > thanks for the answer, but as mentioned at the end, > "--force" assemby does not work. > Reason is, 7 disks complains 3 are missing and the > 3 missing are assembed, since their superblock does > not report errors. > Of course, 3 disks are not enough to assembly the > array, forced or not. Details please. "--examine" output of every device would be a good start. Output for "mdadm --assemble --force --verbose ....." would help too. NeilBrown > > bye, > > pg > > On Sat, May 04, 2013 at 04:22:39PM +0000, Rudy Zijlstra wrote: > > Hi > > > > I would start with mdadm assemble --force > > > > Do not use create unless all else has failed > > > > Cheers > > > > Rudy > > --- > > Verstuurd met mijn BlackBerry van Vodafone > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Piergiorgio Sartor <piergiorgio.sartor@xxxxxxxx> > > Sender: linux-raid-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Date: Sat, 4 May 2013 18:08:04 > > To: <linux-raid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Subject: RAID-6 with 3 missing disks > > > > Hi all, > > > > I know this was probably already discussed, but > > maybe I need some refresh. > > > > I've a 10 HDDs RAID-6 which, due to mishap (disks > > were disconnected accidentaly), has now 3 missing > > devices and cannot be assembled. > > The data should be OK, since no writes were occurring > > during the accident, so putting them together again > > should work. > > > > As far as I know, one option is to create, with > > "mdadm -C" the array again, giving the disks in > > the proper order. > > > > Since all HDDs are readable, I guess "mdadm -E" > > should return the role of each device. > > Is this correct for the creation order? > > > > Second question is about the "Data Offset", since > > this array was created with an older version of > > "mdadm" and the data offset is very close to the > > superblock. > > As far as I know, new mdadm creates the data a > > bit far aways. > > Is there any way to specifiy the proper offset? > > > > Finally, is there an alternative to "mdadm -C" > > or it is the only option? > > Forcing assembly does not work, but maybe there > > is another way to tell mdadm to really assemby > > the array, taking into account the superblock > > information, which are all readable. > > > > Thanks a lot in advance, > > > > bye, > > > > -- > > > > piergiorgio > > -- > > 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 >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
