On 05/21/2013 08:51 AM, Jim Santos wrote: > santos@bender:/etc/mdadm$ sudo mdadm --examine /dev/sda7 > > /dev/sda7: > Magic : a92b4efc > Version : 0.90.00 ^^^^^^^ There's your problem. Seriously. > Preferred Minor : 126 So, how did you ever get version 0.90 superblocks that count from 127 backwards? Mdadm doesn't do that. In fact, mdadm relies on you *not* doing that. Here's the deal. When you use version 0.90 superblocks, the number is taken from the superminor field, usually starting at 0 and counting up, and the device file is then /dev/md<number>. With version 1.x superblocks, we care about the name of the device, not the number, and the name is taken from the name field of the superblock, and we create the device as /dev/md/<name>. However, when this support was added, the kernel didn't support named elements (aka, you couldn't have a md/root device in the kernel namespace, it needed to be md<number>), so the /dev/md/<name> file is actually a symlink to a /dev/md<number> file, and we would allocate from 127 and count backwards so that they would be as unlikely as possible to conflict with numbered names from version 0.90 superblocks. You are running into that impossible conflict. I would remake all of your version 0.90 raid arrays as version 1.0 raid arrays (the superblock should sit in the exact same space and the arrays should be the same size, but I can't say that for certain because newer mdadm might reserve more space between the end of the filesystem and the superblock than older mdadm did, so a test would be necessary first), and in the process I would give them all names, and then I would totally eliminate all references to /dev/md<number> in your system setup and stick with just /dev/md/<name> for everything, and then I would remake your initrd and be done with it all. -- 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