Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 1 Oct 2001 05:56:19 +0200 | From | Jakob Østergaard <> |
| |
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/
|  |