On Monday 20 August 2007, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Hal Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.08.20.2022 +0200]: > > In this case, I had 4 drives, so if one failed, then the spare > > should have been added but that hadn't happened. > > I thought your original email said it did resync the spare?
It did on the first failure. Then another failed and I turned the machine off. When I got 2 more drives, I put them in and it rebuilt the array using 3 of the drives with one as a spare. Then when it failed this time, it had never started rebuilding the spare. > > I've also tested the two "failed" drives and they are quite > > functional. A friend made a point to me that could make > > a difference. I had not partitioned the drives since mdadm seems > > okay without partitions. He said even if I only use one > > drive-wide partition, I should still partition the drives in > > a RAID first. > > Your friend is confused. :) > I don't see why you'd have to do this. The partition table would get > overwritten anyway. I've noticed, though, that on one system I had originally defined the raid using /dev/hde1, hdf1, and so on. When I tried to rebuild it with /dev/hde, hdf, and so on, it would not rebiuld. > > Fortunately, this was in a backup system so I can get new drives > > and rebuild it from scratch with the larger drives. I've already > > got ideas for using the "failed" drives that are proving to be > > just fine. > > Have you inspected the smartctl output and checked for SMART errors? I looked at the logs. Is this a different output and where would I find it? Hal -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
