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
>
>
>
