[CentOS] *very* ugly mdadm issue
Keith Keller
kkeller at wombat.san-francisco.ca.usTue Sep 2 18:05:18 UTC 2014
- Previous message: [CentOS] *very* ugly mdadm issue
- Next message: [CentOS] *very* ugly mdadm issue
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 2014-09-02, Warren Young <warren at etr-usa.com> wrote: > On 8/29/2014 14:26, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: >> >> Note that we did this on *raw*, unpartitioned drives (not my idea). > > Nothing wrong with that, particularly with big "midden" volumes like > this one. Indeed--hardware RAID controllers don't partition their drives before creating their arrays. > I don't see why it matters that your /dev/sdd partitioning is different > from your /dev/sdc. When you told it to blast /dev/sdc with the > contents of /dev/sdd, it should have copied the partitioning, too. If it was an rsync, then partitioning would not have been copied, just the filesystem contents. As for the OP, while this certainly doesn't seem to be a problem with mdadm specifically (or linux md in general), the folks on the linux RAID mailing list may be able to help you recover (I, too, seldom use linux md, and do not know it well enough to be helpful). http://vger.kernel.org/vger-lists.html#linux-raid --keith -- kkeller at wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
- Previous message: [CentOS] *very* ugly mdadm issue
- Next message: [CentOS] *very* ugly mdadm issue
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the CentOS mailing list