On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Sam Martin <sambomar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> could it be used without mdadm? i think the suggestion was that if it went
> wrong the disk could still be used as the "raid" stuff was on the end of
> the disk?
>
> that right?
>
>
> On 7 February 2013 22:33, Shane Johnson <s...@rasmussenequipment.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Sam Martin <sambomar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Pascal,
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what top-posting is?
>>> I hope this isn't it!
>>>
>>> You mean test whether i can bring the raid vol up by booting into 64bit
>>> debian from usb?
>>>
>>> i did a mdadm -e on one of the disks in the array
>>>
>>> root@HTPC-NAS:~# mdadm -E /dev/sdc1
>>> /dev/sdc1:
>>> Magic : a92b4efc
>>> Version : 1.2
>>> Feature Map : 0x0
>>> Array UUID : 25a729b1:71f5193b:6abe8ba9:21e698f5
>>> Name : HTPC-NAS:0 (local to host HTPC-NAS)
>>> Creation Time : Thu Dec 20 12:25:56 2012
>>> Raid Level : raid1
>>> Raid Devices : 2
>>>
>>> Avail Dev Size : 5860268032 (2794.39 GiB 3000.46 GB)
>>> Array Size : 2930133824 (2794.39 GiB 3000.46 GB)
>>> Used Dev Size : 5860267648 (2794.39 GiB 3000.46 GB)
>>> Data Offset : 262144 sectors
>>> Super Offset : 8 sectors
>>> State : clean
>>> Device UUID : fe1998ea:8535a654:31083985:d8c560c1
>>>
>>> Update Time : Thu Feb 7 09:01:38 2013
>>> Checksum : ad4320a8 - correct
>>> Events : 51
>>>
>>>
>>> Device Role : Active device 1
>>> Array State : AA ('A' == active, '.' == missing)
>>>
>>>
>>> I think the 1.2 means it's a no go in terms of running the disk
>>> independently of the raid vol.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Sam
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, January 27, 2013 11:10:01 PM UTC, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
>>> > Sam Martin a ï¿œcrit :
>>> >
>>> > > Thanks for reply Pascal.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Please don't top-post.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > > How would I know?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > mdadm -E /dev/<raid_member> (e.g. /dev/sdc1)
>>> >
>>> > mdadm -D /dev/<raid_device> (e.g. /dev/md0)
>>> >
>>> > cat /proc/mdstat
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > > I've just posted a question to original response, do you happen to
>>> know the answer?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > There are two questions.
>>> >
>>> > I already replied to the first one. I don't know about the second one,
>>> >
>>> > but I see no reason why the RAID array would not work with a 64-bit
>>> >
>>> > system. If unsure just try it with a 64-bit live system.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> >
>>> > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
>>> >
>>> > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
>>> listmas...@lists.debian.org
>>> >
>>> > Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5105af36.60...@plouf.fr.eu.org
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
>>> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
>>> listmas...@lists.debian.org
>>> Archive:
>>> http://lists.debian.org/9bfc076c-457e-45e3-8719-35bc86a0f...@googlegroups.com
>>>
>>> Your output from mdadm -e on that disk show that it is raid level one
>> which is a mirror so you can run with one disk failed, but there is no
>> redundancy anymore.
>>
>> --
>> Shane D. Johnson
>> IT Administrator
>> Rasmussen Equipment
>>
>>
>>
> Sorry, I don't think so. From my understanding, it is still a member of
the raid and would need the mdadm in order to present the volume to the os
to see the partition info, Although, I don't know about pulling data of
with some sort of disk forensics.
--
Shane D. Johnson
IT Administrator
Rasmussen Equipment
