On 08/19/2014 04:08 AM, Ethan Wilson wrote:
On 19/08/2014 09:09, Killian De Volder wrote:
No need to remove the bitmap.
But be very careful that the disk is exactly the same size (or bigger).
I recently had a disk that was slightly smaller then advertised !
But if it's a raid6 why not just jank a disk ?
It's still going to be redundant, but only on 1 disk.
Killian De Volder
Megasoft bvba
killian.de.volder@xxxxxxxxxxx
I think it would not be accepted by MD if the size was smaller than
needed. At least with --replace. With the dd thing I don't know: it
might trust the metadata and bypass the check.... I'd be careful in
that case indeed.
--
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
Thank you all. I think many feel dd is risky although doable. I felt the
same way too. Let me look for alternate/safe ways.
I wanted to experiment because the real data in the array is small and
I had good backups. Still, I do not think it is worth risking the chance
of trashing the array. I am more worried of the what if scenario, where
there is corruption, but not detected until my backup is no longer up to
date - I am not fond of Murphy :-)
Ramesh
--
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
