[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#446323: mdadm: recovery in infinite loop



On 10/15/07, Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de> wrote:
> On Monday October 15, szybalski@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > seems as the size is the same?
>
> "seems".
> I was hoping for
>    cat /proc/partitions
hplinux:/home/lucas# cat /proc/partitions
major minor  #blocks  name

   3     0  312571224 hda
   3     1   34178256 hda1
   3     2  276438487 hda2
   3     3          1 hda3
   3     5    1951866 hda5
   3    64  312571224 hdb
   3    65   34178256 hdb1
   3    66  276438487 hdb2
   3    67          1 hdb3
   3    69    1951866 hdb5
   9     0   34178176 md0
   9     2  276438400 md2
   9     4    1951744 md4

> and maybe even
>    fdisk -l /dev/hda /dev/hdb
>
hplinux:/home/lucas# fdisk -l /dev/hda /dev/hdb

Disk /dev/hda: 320.0 GB, 320072933376 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 38913 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes

   Device Boot      Start         End      Blocks   Id  System
/dev/hda1   *           1        4255    34178256   fd  Linux raid autodetect
/dev/hda2            4499       38913   276438487+  fd  Linux raid autodetect
/dev/hda3            4256        4498     1951897+   5  Extended
/dev/hda5            4256        4498     1951866   fd  Linux raid autodetect

Partition table entries are not in disk order

Disk /dev/hdb: 320.0 GB, 320072933376 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 38913 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes

   Device Boot      Start         End      Blocks   Id  System
/dev/hdb1   *           1        4255    34178256   fd  Linux raid autodetect
/dev/hdb2            4499       38913   276438487+  fd  Linux raid autodetect
/dev/hdb3            4256        4498     1951897+   5  Extended
/dev/hdb5            4256        4498     1951866   fd  Linux raid autodetect

Partition table entries are not in disk order

> I should have been more specific.

how do I undo?  mdadm /dev/md2 -f /dev/hda2
So I could try the sync in init 1
Lucas




Reply to: