Re: Moving mdadm raid volume to new OS install

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Sam Martin <sambomartin@gmail.com> wrote:

could it be used without mdadm? i think the suggestion was that if it went wrong the disk could still be used as the "raid" stuff was on the end of the disk?

that right?

On 7 February 2013 22:33, Shane Johnson <sdj@rasmussenequipment.com> wrote:

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Sam Martin <sambomartin@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Pascal,

I'm not sure what top-posting is?
I hope this isn't it!

You mean test whether i can bring the raid vol up by booting into 64bit debian from usb?

i did a mdadm -e on one of the disks in the array

root@HTPC-NAS:~# mdadm -E /dev/sdc1
/dev/sdc1:
Magic : a92b4efc
Version : 1.2
Feature Map : 0x0
Array UUID : 25a729b1:71f5193b:6abe8ba9:21e698f5
Name : HTPC-NAS:0 (local to host HTPC-NAS)
Creation Time : Thu Dec 20 12:25:56 2012
Raid Level : raid1
Raid Devices : 2

Avail Dev Size : 5860268032 (2794.39 GiB 3000.46 GB)
Array Size : 2930133824 (2794.39 GiB 3000.46 GB)
Used Dev Size : 5860267648 (2794.39 GiB 3000.46 GB)
Data Offset : 262144 sectors
Super Offset : 8 sectors
State : clean
Device UUID : fe1998ea:8535a654:31083985:d8c560c1

Update Time : Thu Feb 7 09:01:38 2013
Checksum : ad4320a8 - correct
Events : 51

Device Role : Active device 1
Array State : AA ('A' == active, '.' == missing)

I think the 1.2 means it's a no go in terms of running the disk independently of the raid vol.

Thanks
Sam

On Sunday, January 27, 2013 11:10:01 PM UTC, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> Sam Martin a ï¿œcrit :
>
> > Thanks for reply Pascal.
>
>
>
> Please don't top-post.
>
>
>
> > How would I know?
>
>
>
> mdadm -E /dev/<raid_member> (e.g. /dev/sdc1)
>
> mdadm -D /dev/<raid_device> (e.g. /dev/md0)
>
> cat /proc/mdstat
>
>
>
> > I've just posted a question to original response, do you happen to know the answer?
>
>
>
> There are two questions.
>
> I already replied to the first one. I don't know about the second one,
>
> but I see no reason why the RAID array would not work with a 64-bit
>
> system. If unsure just try it with a 64-bit live system.

>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
>
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>

> Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5105AF36.60803@plouf.fr.eu.org

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Archive: [🔎] 9bfc076c-457e-45e3-8719-35bc86a0f878@googlegroups.com" target="_blank">http://lists.debian.org/[🔎] 9bfc076c-457e-45e3-8719-35bc86a0f878@googlegroups.com

Your output from mdadm -e on that disk show that it is raid level one which is a mirror so you can run with one disk failed, but there is no redundancy anymore.

--
Shane D. Johnson
IT Administrator
Rasmussen Equipment

Sorry, I don't think so. From my understanding, it is still a member of the raid and would need the mdadm in order to present the volume to the os to see the partition info, Although, I don't know about pulling data of with some sort of disk forensics.

--
Shane D. Johnson

IT Administrator

Rasmussen Equipment