on the raid0 isw - the patch seems to work. On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 6:30 PM, NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 17:34:29 -0800 "David F." <df7729@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> Contents of /proc/partitions: >> major minor #blocks name >> >> 8 32 143638992 sdc >> 8 33 102400 sdc1 >> 8 34 143535568 sdc2 >> 8 48 143638992 sdd >> 8 64 143638992 sde >> 8 80 143638992 sdf >> 8 81 102400 sdf1 >> 8 82 143535568 sdf2 >> 8 96 143638992 sdg >> 11 0 48160 sr0 >> 8 16 7632892 sdb > > This seems to suggest that there are no md devices that are active. > > >> Contents of /proc/mdstat (Linux software RAID status): >> Personalities : [linear] [raid0] [raid1] [raid10] [raid6] [raid5] >> [raid4] [multipath] >> md127 : inactive sdg[0](S) >> 1061328 blocks super external:ddf >> >> unused devices: <none> > > And this confirms it - just md127 which is inactive and is a ddf 'container'. > >> Contents of /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf (Linux software RAID config file): >> # mdadm.conf >> # >> # Please refer to mdadm.conf(5) for information about this file. >> # >> >> # by default (built-in), scan all partitions (/proc/partitions) and all >> # containers for MD superblocks. alternatively, specify devices to scan, using >> # wildcards if desired. >> DEVICE partitions containers >> >> # automatically tag new arrays as belonging to the local system >> HOMEHOST <system> >> >> ARRAY metadata=ddf UUID=7ab254d0:fae71048:404edde9:750a8a05 >> ARRAY container=7ab254d0:fae71048:404edde9:750a8a05 member=0 >> UUID=45b3ab73:5c998afc:01bbf815:12660984 > > This shows that mdadm is expecting a container with > UUID=7ab254d0:fae71048:404edde9:750a8a05 > which is presumably found, and a member with > UUID=45b3ab73:5c998afc:01bbf815:12660984 > which it presumably has not found. > >> > >> >> mdadm --examine --scan >> > ARRAY metadata=ddf UUID=7ab254d0:fae71048: >> > 404edde9:750a8a05 >> > ARRAY container=7ab254d0:fae71048:404edde9:750a8a05 member=0 >> > UUID=5337ab03:86ca2abc:d42bfbc8:23626c78 > > This shows that mdadm found a container with the correct UUID, but the member > array inside the container has the wrong uuid. > > Martin: I think one of your recent changes would have changed the member UUID > for some specific arrays because the one that was being created before wasn't > reliably stable. Could that apply to David's situation? > > David: if you remove the "UUID=" part for the array leaving the > "container=.... member=0" as the identification, does it work? > > >> > >> >> mdadm --assemble --scan --no-degraded -v >> > mdadm: looking for devices for further assembly >> > mdadm: /dev/md/ddf0 is a container, but we are looking for components >> > mdadm: no RAID superblock on /dev/sdf >> > mdadm: no RAID superblock on /dev/md/MegaSR2 >> > mdadm: no RAID superblock on /dev/md/MegaSR1 >> > mdadm: no RAID superblock on /dev/md/MegaSR > > This seems to suggest that there were 3 md arrays active, where as the > previous data didn't show that. So it seems the two sets of information are > inconsistent and any conclusions I draw are uncertain. > > 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
