On Nov 24, 2007 9:27 PM, Bill Davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, I think you read that backward. using PARTITIONS is the right way to do
> it, but I was suggesting that the boot mdadm.conf in initrd was still using
> the old deleted partition names. And I assume that the old drives were
>
On Nov 24, 2007 12:20 PM, Bill Davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Does that match what's in the init files used at boot? By any chance
> does the information there explicitly list partitions by name? If you
> change to "PARTITIONS" in /etc/mdadm.conf it won't bite you until you
> change the de
Joshua Johnson wrote:
Greetings, long time listener, first time caller.
I recently replaced a disk in my existing 8 disk RAID 6 array.
Previously, all disks were PATA drives connected to the motherboard
IDE and 3 promise Ultra 100/133 controllers. I replaced one of the
Promise controllers with
On Nov 23, 2007 11:19 AM, Joshua Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Greetings, long time listener, first time caller.
>
> I recently replaced a disk in my existing 8 disk RAID 6 array.
> Previously, all disks were PATA drives connected to the motherboard
> IDE and 3 promise Ultra 100/133 controll
Joshua Johnson wrote:
Greetings, long time listener, first time caller.
I recently replaced a disk in my existing 8 disk RAID 6 array.
Previously, all disks were PATA drives connected to the motherboard
IDE and 3 promise Ultra 100/133 controllers. I replaced one of the
Promise controllers with
Greetings, long time listener, first time caller.
I recently replaced a disk in my existing 8 disk RAID 6 array.
Previously, all disks were PATA drives connected to the motherboard
IDE and 3 promise Ultra 100/133 controllers. I replaced one of the
Promise controllers with a Via 64xx based control
