I think the difference is between me and the people whose success I'm trying to replicate is that they were using arrays made up of formatted partitions, whereas I was using mdadm: /dev/sdc1 is identified as a member of /dev/md0, slot 2. I will put a copy of this reply here: http://marc.info/?l=linux-raid&m=134415164808677&w=2 For those of you looking at the linux-raid mailing list, I am coming from here: http://neil.brown.name/blog/20120615073245 . If not you can even tell mount to use an offset, e.g. this content
I don't know whether or not people can continue to post in a thread once it's been marked "solved", but if so I would still appreciate an explanation from someone who Search this Thread 05-13-2012, 04:47 PM #1 -Thomas- LQ Newbie Registered: Jun 2011 Location: Texas Posts: 25 Rep: Problem with software raid! Join Date Jul 2010 Posts 3 Hey Gilbo - Please help Your scenario seems most similar and promising to the one I am facing and I was hoping you could help mdadm: no RAID superblock on /dev/sdb mdadm: /dev/sdb has wrong uuid.
My issues are with the linux driver/card, fedora 14 to be more specific. Reply With Quote 09-06-2006,08:52 PM #2 Gilbo View Profile View Forum Posts Private Message Storage is cool Join Date Aug 2004 Location Ottawa, ON Posts 738 Another question. alternatively, specify devices to scan, using # wildcards if desired. #DEVICE partitions containers # auto-create devices with Debian standard permissions CREATE owner=root group=disk mode=0660 auto=yes # automatically tag new arrays as The RAID 5 array is online, and the [_UU] flags show us that one disk is missing.
How are the functions used in cryptographic hash functions chosen? Having said all that, I'm personally in the situation where BOTH my drives where marked as spares and can't mount either in degraded mode. end_request: I/O error, dev sdb, sector 8 md: super_written gets error=-5, uptodate=0 raid5: Disk failure on sdb, disabling device. Mdadm: Cannot Get Array Info For /dev/md0 Does ls /dev/sd* list all the drives and partitions that you would normally expect to see on that machine?
That means a company that disassembles your hard drive in a clean room. Mdadm Start Array share|improve this answer edited Apr 24 at 2:13 answered Apr 23 at 16:22 Eugene. 11 add a comment| Your Answer draft saved draft discarded Sign up or log in Sign Results 1 to 39 of 39 Thread: RAID Superblock disappeared from one of my disks after crash. I'm not really sure how much data is on each drive...
If you plan to store '/boot' on this device please ensure that your boot-loader understands md/v1.x metadata, or use --metadata=0.90 mdadm: /dev/sdc appears to be part of a raid array level=-unknown- Mdadm: /dev/sdb1 Is Busy - Skipping rr62x:[0 1 ] start port soft reset (probe 9). So we force it: [email protected]:~$ sudo mdadm --assemble /dev/md0 --scan --force mdadm: SET_ARRAY_INFO failed for /dev/md0: Device or resource busy Hmm, something's keeping our RAID array busy... In my case the new arrays were missing in this file, but if you have them listed this is probably not a fix to your problem. # definitions of existing MD
The same behaviour occurred - drives were booted out of the controller one at a time and were no longer visible to the system. Join Date Feb 2012 Posts 1 Originally Posted by Gilbo 1. Mdadm Inactive Array rr62x:[0 1 ] start port soft reset (probe 2). Mdadm Start Degraded Array Join Date Mar 2011 Location Raleigh, NC Posts 8 Thanks for the helpful post.
It should update the uuid on the superblocks of the RAID disks. His approach to statesmanship has all the subtlety of Walker, Texas Ranger minus Chuck Norris' grammar and diction. - homer ca. mdstat tells us that the array has been assembled, but they're all spares for some reason. mdadm: 8:17 is identified as a member of /dev/md0, slot 0. Mdadm Not Enough To Start The Array
If in doubt, DD the drive to make a full copy and use CentOS or other Linux Live CD. mdadm --stop /dev/md127 (and others if those where created using your disks) mdadm -A /dev/md127 /dev/sda1 /dev/sdb1 or, if one of the disks is broken or something, you can bring the I stand to lose a large, well organized, and meticulously tagged media library, some vacation pictures, and my to-do list. Developer does not see priority in Development Workflow being followed Does Doctor Who have an end game to the overall story of the season?
We can watch the progress like this: [email protected]:~$ cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : [linear] [multipath] [raid0] [raid1] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [raid10] md0 : active raid5 sda3 sdb2 sdc2 3858200832 blocks level 5, Mdadm: Md Device /dev/md0 Does Not Appear To Be Active. The device is called md127 and is made up of sdb and sdc. I've tried a bunch of stuff that I haven't listed here.
I zeroed all the superblocks on all the disks. 3. The idea of RAID1ing with a ramdisk came from here:https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=493773#p493773 . As for using or not using md/raid, I think we just got extremly unlucky with a known kernel bug (unknown to us at the time) and should not happen again. Has No Superblock - Assembly Aborted Join Date Feb 2002 Location Twilight Zone Posts 4,364 You're welcome!
node View Public Profile View LQ Blog View Review Entries View HCL Entries Find More Posts by node Tags mdadm, raid, raid1, software raid, superblock Thread Tools Show Printable Version I had the same problem, with an array showing up as inactive, and nothing I did including the "mdadm --examine --scan >/etc/mdadm.conf", as suggested by others here, helped at all. Instead, I got the regular /dev/md127 (which is not active). I'm currently recovering the raid (purposely failed a drive to fully test the superblock thing from earlier).
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. shouldn't i be able to rebuild off of AAA and .AA ? The filesystem was a journalling one (XFS). If it hasn't been starting because it doesn't recognize that there's data, it might try to resync the array by wiping it.
Anybody have any suggestions?
© Copyright 2017 nyfreewifi.com. All rights reserved.