On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Sam Martin <sambomar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> brilliant, not rebuild though, you mean remount / assemble?
>
>
> On 7 February 2013 23:50, Shane Johnson <s...@rasmussenequipment.com>wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Sam Martin <sambomar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> do you know whether i could move a raid1 vol from 32bit dist to 64bit
>>> dist?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7 February 2013 23:32, Shane Johnson <s...@rasmussenequipment.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Please use reply all to keep on the list for future reference and the
>> enlightenment of as many people as possible.
>>
>> Yes, mdadm will rebuild it as long as it supports the version that
>> created the volume.
>>
>> --
>> Shane D. Johnson
>> IT Administrator
>> Rasmussen Equipment
>>
>>
>>
>
Yes - reassamble is correct. thanks for the correction.
--
Shane D. Johnson
IT Administrator
Rasmussen Equipment
