On Sun, 2010-03-21 at 15:20 +0100, Mathieu Parent (Debian) wrote: > On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org> wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 01:38:53PM +0100, Mathieu Parent (Debian) wrote: > >> On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org> wrote: > >> > This is expected and not an error. Don't list device-names in > >> > /etc/mdadm.conf. > >> I am not using device names, see attached file. > > > > Hmm, the file is /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf and mdadm may have generated a > > config during a long ago upgrade, see > > /usr/share/doc/mdadm/README.upgrading-2.5.3.gz. > > The attached file was actually /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf (I don't have > /etc/mdadm.conf). And I have already read the > README.upgrading-2.5.3.gz and done what is expected. i have already > done "rm -f /var/lib/mdadm/CONF-UNCHECKED". > > I have the problem with 2.6.32-10, not with 2.6.32-9. I really don't > were mdadm find device-names, I only use uuid in conffiles. The files you sent show that in the broken state mdadm has found some but not all of the devices. So I would say the configuration is fine but perhaps mdadm is not waiting long enough to find all the devices that make up the array at boot time. If /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf is likely to contain device names then I should deal with this in the upgrade script. However this does not seem to be an issue in this case. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings If you seem to know what you are doing, you'll be given more to do.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part