On Thursday 02 November 2006 10:28, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Dan Pascu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.11.01.2323 +0100]: > > Also I've noticed something weird in the test you did. After failing > > sde1 from md99 and stopping the array, when it was started with the > > startup script it said it assembled md99 with 2 drives. The same was > > said by mdadm --assemble later, as if between stopping and starting > > it the failed drive was magically re-added. The message should have > > been something like "starting degraded array with 1 drive (out of 2)" > > if I'm not mistaken. > > No, because the drives were only marked as failed but not yet > removed. On reassembly, they just get added again. > > Are you seeing different behaviour?
Yes. In my case, if I fail a drive, it is still there in a failed state, but if I then stop the raid array, when it's restarted, the failed drive is no longer there, as if it was removed meanwhile, only that I never issued the remove command. And when the array starts, it shows that it started degraded with only 1 out of 2 drives. > > > Personalities : [raid1] > > md1 : active raid1 sdb2[1] sda2[0] > > 231609024 blocks [2/2] [UU] > > bitmap: 5/221 pages [20KB], 512KB chunk > > > > md0 : active raid1 sdb1[1] sda1[0] > > 12586816 blocks [2/2] [UU] > > bitmap: 12/193 pages [48KB], 32KB chunk > > You are using bitmaps, I am not. Maybe that's the cause? The presence of bitmaps doesn't influence this. I got the same behavior with or without them. > > Could you please recreate the problem from scratch and show me *all* > steps? As I said I'm currently unable to do this, but as soon as I get access to the system to test it again I will. I will do all the setup again on a test system running under vmware and record all the steps I will be doing and save the output of the commands I'll run. -- Dan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]