lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Sep]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
On Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 07:51:25PM -0500, Evan Harris wrote:
>
> Thanks for the fast reply!
>
> I'm not sure I understand why drive 5 should be failed. It is one of the
> four disks with the most recently correct superblocks. The disk with the
> oldest superblock is #1. Can you point me to documentation which explains
> this better? I'm a little afraid of doing that without reading more on it,
> since it seems to mark yet another of the 4 remaining "good" drives as
> "bad".

Oh, sorry, of course the oldest disk should be marked as failed.

But the way you mark a disk failed is to replace "raid-disk" with "failed-disk".

What you did in your configuration was to say that sde1 was disk 1, and sdi1 was
disk 5 *AND* disk 1 *AND* it was failed.

Replace "raid-disk" with "failed-disk" for the device that you want to mark
as failed. Don't touch the numbers.

Cheers,

--
................................................................
: jakob@unthought.net : And I see the elder races, :
:.........................: putrid forms of man :
: Jakob Østergaard : See him rise and claim the earth, :
: OZ9ABN : his downfall is at hand. :
:.........................:............{Konkhra}...............:
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:03    [W:0.057 / U:1.424 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site