From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bill Davidsen Subject: Re: freshly grown array shrinks after first reboot - major data loss Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 15:30:52 -0400 Message-ID: <4E6A696C.20901@tmr.com> References: <4E5FA4B5.6010407@macroscoop.nl> <4E5FAEF3.60501@macroscoop.nl> <4E5FB350.3040905@redhat.com> <4E5FC495.7070909@macroscoop.nl> <4E5FCC32.6020402@redhat.com> <4E5FD465.4000809@macroscoop.nl> <4E5FDFF6.4030200@redhat.com> <4E609FAC.6020303@macroscoop.nl> <4E60B89E.5020806@anonymous.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4E60B89E.5020806@anonymous.org.uk> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: John Robinson Cc: Pim Zandbergen , Doug Ledford , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, Neil Brown List-Id: linux-raid.ids John Robinson wrote: > On 02/09/2011 10:19, Pim Zandbergen wrote: >> On 09/01/2011 09:41 PM, Doug Ledford wrote: >>>> I could file a bug on bugzilla.redhat.com if that would help. >>> >>> Feel free, it helps me track things. >> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=735306 > > I'm not sure whether it's just the --grow that should complain, or > perhaps the earlier step of > mdadm /dev/md/array-using-0.90-metadata --add /dev/3TB > should also complain (even if it'll work with less than 2TiB in use, > it ought to tell the user they won't be able to grow the array). > Perhaps Neil can confirm, but the limitation seems to be using 2TB as an array member size, I am reasonably sure that if you had partitioned the drives into two 1.5TB partitions you could have created the array just fine. Note that this is just a speculation, not a suggestion to allow using 0.90 metadata, and I do realize that this array was created in the dark ages, not being created new. -- Bill Davidsen We are not out of the woods yet, but we know the direction and have taken the first step. The steps are many, but finite in number, and if we persevere we will reach our destination. -me, 2010