Re: Mdadm won't rebuild a RAID5
On Monday 20 August 2007, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Hal Vaughan <firstname.lastname@example.org> [2007.08.20.2022
> > In this case, I had 4 drives, so if one failed, then the spare
> > should have been added but that hadn't happened.
> I thought your original email said it did resync the spare?
It did on the first failure. Then another failed and I turned the
machine off. When I got 2 more drives, I put them in and it rebuilt
the array using 3 of the drives with one as a spare. Then when it
failed this time, it had never started rebuilding the spare.
> > I've also tested the two "failed" drives and they are quite
> > functional. A friend made a point to me that could make
> > a difference. I had not partitioned the drives since mdadm seems
> > okay without partitions. He said even if I only use one
> > drive-wide partition, I should still partition the drives in
> > a RAID first.
> Your friend is confused. :)
> I don't see why you'd have to do this. The partition table would get
> overwritten anyway.
I've noticed, though, that on one system I had originally defined the
raid using /dev/hde1, hdf1, and so on. When I tried to rebuild it
with /dev/hde, hdf, and so on, it would not rebiuld.
> > Fortunately, this was in a backup system so I can get new drives
> > and rebuild it from scratch with the larger drives. I've already
> > got ideas for using the "failed" drives that are proving to be
> > just fine.
> Have you inspected the smartctl output and checked for SMART errors?
I looked at the logs. Is this a different output and where would I find