Karl Voit wrote:
if (super == NULL) {
fprintf(stderr, Name ": No suitable drives found for %s\n", mddev);
[...]
Well I guess, the message will be shown, if the superblock is not found.
Yes. No clue why, my buest guess is that you've already zeroed the superblock.
What does madm --query / --examine say about /dev/sd[abcd], are there
superblocks ?
st = guess_super(fd);
if (st == NULL) {
if (!quiet)
fprintf(stderr, Name ": Unrecognised md component device - %s\n",
dev);
Again: this seems to be the case, when the superblock is empty.
Yes, looks like it can't find any usable superblocks.
Maybe you've accidentally zeroed the superblocks on sd[abcd]1 also?
If you fdisk -l /dev/sd[abcd], does the partition tables look like
they should / like they used to?
What does mdadm --query / --examine /dev/sd[abcd]1 tell you, any superblocks ?
Since my miserably failure I am probably too careful *g*
The problem is also, that without deeper background knowledge, I can not
predict, if this or that permanently affects the real data on the disks.
My best guess is that it's OK and you won't loose data if you run
--zero-superblock on /dev/sd[abcd] and then create an array on
/dev/sd[abcd]1, but I do find it odd that it suddenly can't find
superblocks on /dev/sd[abcd]1.
Maybe such a person like me starts to think that sw-raid-tools like
mdadm should warn users before permanent changes are executed. If
mdadm should be used by users (additional to raid-geeks like you),
it might be a good idea to prevent data loss. (Ment as a suggestion.)
Perhaps. Or perhaps mdadm should just tell you that you're doing
something stupid if you try to manipulate arrays on a block device
which seems to contain a partition table.
It's not like it's even remotely useful to create an MD array spanning
the whole disk rather than spanning a partition which spans the whole
disk, anyway.
-
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