On 09/14/2013 05:06 PM, Francis Moreau wrote: > Martin, > > On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Francis Moreau <francis.moro@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 12:38 PM, NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 00:35:47 +0200 Francis Moreau <francis.moro@xxxxxxxxx> >>> wrote: > > [...] > >>> >>> BTW I think I've fixed the issue with mdadm -R /dev/md125 for DDF. >>> Try the latest git. >> >> It seems it fixes the issue: mdmon is now correctly started with a >> degraded DDF array. >> >> However, after using the system with only one disk (sda), sdb is now >> outdated. I rebooted the system with 2 disks but mdadm doesn't seem to >> notice that sdb is outdated: >> >> # mdadm -I /dev/sda >> mdadm: container /dev/md/ddf0 now has 1 device >> mdadm: /dev/md/array1_0 assembled with 1 device but not started >> # mdadm -I /dev/sdb >> mdadm: container /dev/md/ddf0 now has 2 devices >> mdadm: Started /dev/md/array1_0 with 2 devices (1 new) >> # cat /proc/mdstat >> Personalities : [raid1] >> md126 : active (auto-read-only) raid1 sdb[1] sda[0] >> 2064384 blocks super external:/md127/0 [2/2] [UU] >> >> md127 : inactive sdb[1](S) sda[0](S) >> 65536 blocks super external:ddf >> >> So this time mdadm fails to kick out non fresh disk (when using '-I') >> but with DDF. >> > > Maybe you have an idea on why mdadm doesn't notice that sdb is > outdated in that case (DDF) ? It's a bug. I am sending a patch soon. Thanks a lot. Martin > > Thanks -- 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
