3
2
There is some information available on shape changes in RAID arrays but I'm a little nervous and would like confirmation:
Problem: I have 2 500GB drive as software raid 5 (mdadm). I would like to free one of the two drives since RAID-redundancy is for wimps... Can I just
mdadm --grow --array-size=1
followed by a
mdadm --grow --raid-disks 1
?
This seems too simple. How would I specify which drive gets freed? Part of the reason for this maneuver is that I don't have additional space to run a backup.
Edit: As it is, this is a non-std RAID5 implementation (see comments by Dave M or gman). However, please don't chastise me for recklessness. I am simply interested in the least risky method of doing this drive removal. Let's assume I have taken care of the backup issue but I'm not going to use it to rebuild from backup.
$ sudo mdadm --detail --test /dev/md1
/dev/md1:
Version : 00.90
Creation Time : Sat Sep 1 18:08:21 2007
Raid Level : raid5
Array Size : 488383936 (465.76 GiB 500.11 GB)
Used Dev Size : 488383936 (465.76 GiB 500.11 GB)
Raid Devices : 2
Total Devices : 2
Preferred Minor : 1
Persistence : Superblock is persistent
Update Time : Mon Nov 28 11:32:13 2011
State : clean
Active Devices : 2
Working Devices : 2
Failed Devices : 0
Spare Devices : 0
Layout : left-symmetric
Chunk Size : 64K
UUID : XXX (local to host XXX)
Events : 0.29336
Number Major Minor RaidDevice State
0 8 33 0 active sync /dev/sdc1
1 8 17 1 active sync /dev/sdb1
2RAID 5 requires threee drives. – Dave M – 2011-11-28T18:31:24.110
RAID5 requires a minimum of 3 drives, so you do not have true RAID5. Level-changing support is fleeting at best, and if you're at all sensitive to data loss I suggest against it; especially considering your non-standard implementation. Further, AFAIK you cannot migrate from a parity-based RAID level to a non-parity one or to a non-RAID disk either. – Garrett – 2011-11-28T18:38:04.277
Actually, you can do RAID5 over 3 partitions. mdadm doesn't necessarily care if you have three real drives, or just three partitions. I've done RAID1 on a single drive. I'm not suggesting this is a good idea, mind. A single drive failure can obviously hose multiple partitions. – ChrisInEdmonton – 2011-11-28T19:28:43.473
DaveM and gman thanks for the RAID5 correction. Editing accordingly. – DrSAR – 2011-11-28T19:42:25.543
As there is no parity disk, this is really just RAID0 right? – Paul – 2011-11-28T21:45:20.817
@Paul I don't think so: Apparently, "a RAID 0 (also known as a stripe set or striped volume) splits data evenly across two or more disks (striped) with no parity information for redundancy." I believe I have redundancy (hence a capacity of 500GB with a 2 x 500GB array) and please also note the mdadm test report in the post. It's called raid5. – DrSAR – 2011-11-29T00:51:00.107
Yeah I saw the raid5, but md will do what is can with the disks you provide - it absolutely can't create "real" raid5 with two disks. I think in the absence of the third disk it just mirrors. Hence the half capacity. So RAID1 not RAID0. – Paul – 2011-11-29T02:31:19.180