In article <448C5397.7090500@gmail.com>,
	Mark Cullen <mark.r.cullen@gmail.com> writes:
> Frederick Bruckman wrote:
>> In article <20060610190920.35138325C7@cs.usask.ca>,
>> 	Greg Oster <oster@cs.usask.ca> writes:
>> 
>>>Yes.  The first disk in a RAID 1 set is considered the 'master', and 
>>>in the face of having 2 disks where it can't tell which is "more 
>>>correct", the 'master' will be used as the difinitive source.
>> 
>> Now, if Mark had just removed wd1, wrote some data to wd3,
>> shutdown cleanly and added wd1 back, wd3 would become the
>> master, right?  We hope?  It only happened the way it did
>> because he used "raidctl -C"?
> 
> Ok, well I want to apologise! I said -c didn't seem to want to work, but 
> I have tried it just now and it actually works fine, and labels the 
> newly re-added disk as "failed" instead of "optimal", as with -C, which 
> is what I would have expected to happen!
> 
> After adding the new disk, however, I cannot do an -i. I have to first 
> do a -R and rebuild the disk, and then I can do an -i. Is this correct? 
> This would mean that the 'master' would always be the first working drive?

Of course? You have to tell the system which disk you want to
rebuild onto. 

I was thinking of the common case where a drive goes away for
a while, then comes back at the next reboot.  As it's already
configured to be part of the set, parity will rebuild
automatically.  I've always assumed there's a date stamp that
tells raidframe which compenent is newer.  Is there?  It'd be
nice to be able to see that date with "-g".


Frederick