On 23.01.19 21:26, mark wrote:
> Does anyone know if the actual physical position in the hot-swap bays
> affects how mdadm tries to assemble a drive?
mdadm --assemble scans alls drives for the superblock.
Drives are known by device uuids.
The physical position does not matter.
Best regards
Ulf
_
Does anyone know if the actual physical position in the hot-swap bays
affects how mdadm tries to assemble a drive?
mark
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
mark wrote:
> Looking around on the Web, what I just tried was to stop the RAID, then
> do an --assemble --scan, and *that* found everything, put the raid
> together, and appears to be rebuilding using the new drive.
>
> *phew*
>
>
> I do find it interesting that scan works, but explicitly assembli
Looking around on the Web, what I just tried was to stop the RAID, then do
an --assemble --scan, and *that* found everything, put the raid together,
and appears to be rebuilding using the new drive.
*phew*
I do find it interesting that scan works, but explicitly assembling
apparently remembers th
On 1/22/19 2:26 PM, mark wrote:
A user's system had a hard drive failure over the weekend. Linux RAID 6...
But: it's now
Personalities : [raid6] [raid5] [raid4]
md0 : active (auto-read-only) raid5 sdg1[8](S) sdh1[7] sdf1[4] sde1[3]
sdd1[2] sdc1[1]
23441313792 blocks super 1.2 level 5, 512
Am 22.01.2019 um 23:26 schrieb mark:
md0 : active (auto-read-only) raid5 sdg1[8](S) sdh1[7] sdf1[4] sde1[3]
sdd1[2] sdc1[1]
[ ... ]
[__U]
I see a RAID 5 with 2 elements missing from the array. That would mean
data is lost.
Alexander
___
Cent
A user's system had a hard drive failure over the weekend. Linux RAID 6. I
identified the drive, brought the system down (8 drives, and I didn't know
the s/n of the bad one. why it was there in the box, rather than where I
started looking...) Brought it up, RAID not working. I finally found that
I
7 matches
Mail list logo
