From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Phil Turmel Subject: Re: assistance recovering failed raid6 array Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 16:30:45 -0500 Message-ID: References: <58AA4B1E.1030809@bosner.de> <5cc1566c-1b4c-c663-56a1-2040b93b46d7@turmel.org> <231629B1-0888-4B3D-BD81-F641937AC045@bosner.de> <676bd1fa-4b97-2c6a-05b8-bd23290fb9a6@turmel.org> <54F6D166-0D54-49EF-B967-124DC582B299@bosner.de> <30DDAE62-6D76-4999-A69A-A6C16D082DA9@bosner.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <30DDAE62-6D76-4999-A69A-A6C16D082DA9@bosner.de> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Martin Bosner Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On 02/20/2017 02:31 PM, Martin Bosner wrote: > Is there a way tell mdadm to use sdk1 as a “active” device? And how > can i tell the array that it should not try to recover sdm1 but set > it active ? Is there any magic to force the state ? It might not be > healthy for the normal use case but might be helpful for me. No. There's no way to do that. Short of reading the kernel code to do hex editing on the superblock. And since the spare status is there due to an --add action, you can't trust that anything else there would be safe for --create --assume-clean. You would scramble these eggs even further. Phil