maarten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wednesday 19 January 2005 22:22, M�ns Rullg�rd wrote: >> maarten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > To the OP: Yes, every part of a raid-1 array (but only a raid-1 >> > array) will / should be mountable and have the same filesystem as >> > the array has. HOWEVER you should never ever mount the array AT THE >> > SAME TIME as one of its underlying devices! Always umount first, >> > and only then mount the other. >> >> Furthermore, never ever mount a raid-1 component alone in read-write >> mode. Modifying the mirrors individually will almost certainly result >> in breakage when the array is activated again. > > Speaking from personal experience, I _think_ that modifying a drive that's > part of an array gets noticed by md (somehow). At least it always lead to a > mirror breakage with me, and thus a re-add and a resync was in order. > > I'm not sure if it really does that, and neither how it is done, but I'm led > to believe it does get noticed. Maybe md (or the kernel?) writes a marker > just before deactivation which signifies "drive was shutdown @..." ?
If the array is stopped, and then the disks tampered with, there is no way md is noticing it. It's possible, however, that md will notice if a disk is accessed directly while the array is active. -- M�ns Rullg�rd [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
