Search Results

Search found 82 results on 4 pages for 'raid6'.

Page 2/4 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4  | Next Page >

  • Using 2-port LSI 2308-8e card to control 24 SAS HDDs

    - by GregC
    I would like to rely on a RAID-on-chip solution to control 24 SAS hard drives in a direct-attached environment. How would you approach this to get best bandwidth given that I'd like to spend less than $10,000 on the interconnect. I've read that LSI 2308 chip can easily handle 8-drive SSD RAID6 in hardware. I'd like to harness its power to control 24 SAS hard drives over an expander in an external enclosure. Currently I use an Infortrend S24S-G2240 external enclosure. It provides its own controller and expander. I'd like to use LSI 2308 controller for RAID6 somehow instead of the mystery controller in the enclosure. P.S. I tried to create SAS-expander as a tag, but my rep on this site is low.

    Read the article

  • raid md device is not remove from memory, how to overcome this problem

    - by santhosha
    i create raid 10 , i removed two arrays form md11 one by one , after that i going to editing the contents those are mounted ( it will be not responding stage), after i try for remove arrays those are left it is shows device or resource busy ( is not removed from memory). i try to terminate process this is also not work, i absorve from 4 days resync will be 8.0% it can not modifying. cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : [raid1] [raid0] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [linear] [raid10] md11 : active raid10 sde1[3] sdj14 286743936 blocks 64K chunks 2 near-copies [4/1] [___U] [1:2:3:0] [=...................] resync = 8.0% (23210368/286743936) finish=289392.6min speed=15K/sec mdadm -D /dev/md11 /dev/md11: Version : 00.90.03 Creation Time : Sun Jan 16 16:20:01 2011 Raid Level : raid10 Array Size : 286743936 (273.46 GiB 293.63 GB) Device Size : 143371968 (136.73 GiB 146.81 GB) Raid Devices : 4 Total Devices : 2 Preferred Minor : 11 Persistence : Superblock is persistent Update Time : Sun Jan 16 16:56:07 2011 State : active, degraded, resyncing Active Devices : 1 Working Devices : 1 Failed Devices : 1 Spare Devices : 0 Layout : near=2, far=1 Chunk Size : 64K Rebuild Status : 8% complete UUID : 5e124ea4:79a01181:dc4110d3:a48576ea Events : 0.23 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State 0 0 0 0 removed 1 0 0 1 removed 4 8 145 2 faulty spare rebuilding /dev/sdj1 3 8 65 3 active sync /dev/sde1 umount /dev/md11 umount: /dev/md11: not mounted mdadm -S /dev/md11 mdadm: fail to stop array /dev/md11: Device or resource busy lsof /dev/md11 COMMAND PID USER FD TYPE DEVICE SIZE NODE NAME mount 2128 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 mount 5018 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 mdadm 27605 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 mount 30562 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 badblocks 30591 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 kill -9 2128 kill -9 5018 kill -9 27605 kill -9 30562 kill -3 30591 mdadm -S /dev/md11 mdadm: fail to stop array /dev/md11: Device or resource busy lsof /dev/md11 COMMAND PID USER FD TYPE DEVICE SIZE NODE NAME mount 2128 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 mount 5018 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 mdadm 27605 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 mount 30562 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 badblocks 30591 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : [raid1] [raid0] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [linear] [raid10] md11 : active raid10 sde1[3] sdj14 286743936 blocks 64K chunks 2 near-copies [4/1] [___U] [1:2:3:0] [=...................] resync = 8.0% (23210368/286743936) finish=289392.6min speed=15K/sec

    Read the article

  • Did I lost my RAID again?

    - by BarsMonster
    Hi! A little history: 2 years ago I was really excited to find out that mdadm is so powerful so it even can reshape arrays so you can start with a smaller array and the grow it as you need. I've bought 3x1Tb drives and made RAID-5. It was fine for a year. Then I bought 2x more, and tried to reshape to RAID-6 out of 5 drives, and due to some mess with superblock versions, lost all content. Had to rebuild it from scratch, but 2Tb of data were gone. Yesterday I bought 2 more drives, and this time I had everything: properly built array, UPS. I've disabled write intent map, added 2 new drives as a spare and run a command to grow array to 7-disk. It started working, but speed was ridiculously slow, ~100kb/sec. AFter processing first 37Mb at such an amasing speed, one of old HDDs fails. I properly shutdown PC and disconnected failed drive. After bootup it appeared it recreated intent map as it was still in mdadm config, so I removed it from config and rebooted again. Now all I see is that all mdadm processes deadlocks, and don't do anything. PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 1937 root 20 0 12992 608 444 D 0 0.1 0:00.00 mdadm 2283 root 20 0 12992 852 704 D 0 0.1 0:00.01 mdadm 2287 root 20 0 0 0 0 D 0 0.0 0:00.01 md0_reshape 2288 root 18 -2 12992 820 676 D 0 0.1 0:00.01 mdadm And all I see in mdstat is: $ cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : [linear] [multipath] [raid0] [raid1] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [raid10] md0 : active raid6 sdb1[1] sdg1[4] sdf1[7] sde1[6] sdd1[0] sdc1[5] 2929683456 blocks super 1.2 level 6, 1024k chunk, algorithm 2 [7/6] [UU_UUUU] [>....................] reshape = 0.0% (37888/976561152) finish=567604147.2min speed=0K/sec I've already tried mdadm 2.6.7, 3.1.4 and 3.2 - nothing helps. Did I lost my data again? Any suggestions how can I make it work? OS is Ubuntu Server 10.04.2... PS. Needless to say that data is unaccessible - I cannot mount /dev/md0 as save the most valuable data. You can see my disappointment - the very specific thing I was excited about failed twice taking 5Tb of my data with it.

    Read the article

  • raid md device is not remove from memory, how to overcome this problem

    - by santhosha
    i create raid 10 , i removed two arrays form md11 one by one , after that i going to editing the contents those are mounted ( it will be not responding stage), after i try for remove arrays those are left it is shows device or resource busy ( is not removed from memory). i try to terminate process this is also not work, i absorve from 4 days resync will be 8.0% it can not modifying. cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : [raid1] [raid0] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [linear] [raid10] md11 : active raid10 sde1[3] sdj14 286743936 blocks 64K chunks 2 near-copies [4/1] [___U] [1:2:3:0] [=...................] resync = 8.0% (23210368/286743936) finish=289392.6min speed=15K/sec mdadm -D /dev/md11 /dev/md11: Version : 00.90.03 Creation Time : Sun Jan 16 16:20:01 2011 Raid Level : raid10 Array Size : 286743936 (273.46 GiB 293.63 GB) Device Size : 143371968 (136.73 GiB 146.81 GB) Raid Devices : 4 Total Devices : 2 Preferred Minor : 11 Persistence : Superblock is persistent Update Time : Sun Jan 16 16:56:07 2011 State : active, degraded, resyncing Active Devices : 1 Working Devices : 1 Failed Devices : 1 Spare Devices : 0 Layout : near=2, far=1 Chunk Size : 64K Rebuild Status : 8% complete UUID : 5e124ea4:79a01181:dc4110d3:a48576ea Events : 0.23 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State 0 0 0 0 removed 1 0 0 1 removed 4 8 145 2 faulty spare rebuilding /dev/sdj1 3 8 65 3 active sync /dev/sde1 umount /dev/md11 umount: /dev/md11: not mounted mdadm -S /dev/md11 mdadm: fail to stop array /dev/md11: Device or resource busy lsof /dev/md11 COMMAND PID USER FD TYPE DEVICE SIZE NODE NAME mount 2128 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 mount 5018 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 mdadm 27605 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 mount 30562 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 badblocks 30591 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 kill -9 2128 kill -9 5018 kill -9 27605 kill -9 30562 kill -3 30591 mdadm -S /dev/md11 mdadm: fail to stop array /dev/md11: Device or resource busy lsof /dev/md11 COMMAND PID USER FD TYPE DEVICE SIZE NODE NAME mount 2128 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 mount 5018 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 mdadm 27605 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 mount 30562 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 badblocks 30591 root 3r BLK 9,11 4058 /dev/md11 cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : [raid1] [raid0] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [linear] [raid10] md11 : active raid10 sde1[3] sdj14 286743936 blocks 64K chunks 2 near-copies [4/1] [___U] [1:2:3:0] [=...................] resync = 8.0% (23210368/286743936) finish=289392.6min speed=15K/sec

    Read the article

  • mdadm superblock hiding/shadowing partition

    - by Kjell Andreassen
    Short version: Is it safe to do mdadm --zero-superblock /dev/sdd on a disk with a partition (dev/sdd1), filesystem and data? Will the partition be mountable and the data still there? Longer version: I used to have a raid6 array but decided to dismantle it. The disks from the array are now used as non-raid disks. The superblocks were cleared: sudo mdadm --zero-superblock /dev/sdd The disks were repartitioned with fdisk and filesystems created with mfks.ext4. All disks where mounted and everything worked fine. Today, a couple of weeks later, one of the disks is failing to be recognized when trying to mount it, or rather the single partition on it. sudo mount /dev/sdd1 /mnt/tmp mount: special device /dev/sdd1 does not exist fdisk claims there to be a partition on it: sudo fdisk -l /dev/sdd Disk /dev/sdd: 2000.4 GB, 2000398934016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 243201 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0xb06f6341 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdd1 1 243201 1953512001 83 Linux Of course mount is right, the device /dev/sdd1 is not there, I'm guessing udev did not create it because of the mdadm data still on it: sudo mdadm --examine /dev/sdd /dev/sdd: Magic : a92b4efc Version : 1.2 Feature Map : 0x0 Array UUID : b164e513:c0584be1:3cc53326:48691084 Name : pringle:0 (local to host pringle) Creation Time : Sat Jun 16 21:37:14 2012 Raid Level : raid6 Raid Devices : 6 Avail Dev Size : 3907027120 (1863.02 GiB 2000.40 GB) Array Size : 15628107776 (7452.06 GiB 8001.59 GB) Used Dev Size : 3907026944 (1863.02 GiB 2000.40 GB) Data Offset : 2048 sectors Super Offset : 8 sectors State : clean Device UUID : 3ccaeb5b:843531e4:87bf1224:382c16e2 Update Time : Sun Aug 12 22:20:39 2012 Checksum : 4c329db0 - correct Events : 1238535 Layout : left-symmetric Chunk Size : 512K Device Role : Active device 3 Array State : AA.AAA ('A' == active, '.' == missing) My mdadm --zero-superblock apparently didn't work. Can I safely try it again without losing data? If not, are there any suggestion on what do to? Not starting mdadm at all on boot might be a (somewhat unsatisfactory) solution.

    Read the article

  • what kind of RAID should I choose when planning to host a vedio stream application? [duplicate]

    - by facebook-100005613813158
    This question already has an answer here: What are the different widely used RAID levels and when should I consider them? 2 answers Which RAID level should you recommend for a company that plans to hosts a video streaming application?we get 4 candidate ,RAID1 , RAID3,RAID5 AND RAID6. Which one is the best? In my opinion ,a video streaming application doesn't have a very strict demand for data correctness, so , just RAID1 is ok?But on the other hand , RAID1 seems very capacty-consuming?

    Read the article

  • flashcache with mdadm and LVM

    - by Backtogeek
    I am having trouble setting up flashcache on a system with LVM and mdadm, I suspect I am either just missing an obvious step or getting some mapping wrong and hoped someone could point me in the right direction? system info: CentOS 6.4 64 bit mdadm config md0 : active raid1 sdd3[2] sde3[3] sdf3[4] sdg3[5] sdh3[1] sda3[0] 204736 blocks super 1.0 [6/6] [UUUUUU] md2 : active raid6 sdd5[2] sde5[3] sdf5[4] sdg5[5] sdh5[1] sda5[0] 3794905088 blocks super 1.1 level 6, 512k chunk, algorithm 2 [6/6] [UUUUUU] md3 : active raid0 sdc1[1] sdb1[0] 250065920 blocks super 1.1 512k chunks md1 : active raid10 sdh1[1] sda1[0] sdd1[2] sdf1[4] sdg1[5] sde1[3] 76749312 blocks super 1.1 512K chunks 2 near-copies [6/6] [UUUUUU] pcsvan PV /dev/mapper/ssdcache VG Xenvol lvm2 [3.53 TiB / 3.53 TiB free] Total: 1 [3.53 TiB] / in use: 1 [3.53 TiB] / in no VG: 0 [0 ] flashcache create command used: flashcache_create -p back ssdcache /dev/md3 /dev/md2 pvdisplay --- Physical volume --- PV Name /dev/mapper/ssdcache VG Name Xenvol PV Size 3.53 TiB / not usable 106.00 MiB Allocatable yes PE Size 128.00 MiB Total PE 28952 Free PE 28912 Allocated PE 40 PV UUID w0ENVR-EjvO-gAZ8-TQA1-5wYu-ISOk-pJv7LV vgdisplay --- Volume group --- VG Name Xenvol System ID Format lvm2 Metadata Areas 1 Metadata Sequence No 2 VG Access read/write VG Status resizable MAX LV 0 Cur LV 1 Open LV 1 Max PV 0 Cur PV 1 Act PV 1 VG Size 3.53 TiB PE Size 128.00 MiB Total PE 28952 Alloc PE / Size 40 / 5.00 GiB Free PE / Size 28912 / 3.53 TiB VG UUID 7vfKWh-ENPb-P8dV-jVlb-kP0o-1dDd-N8zzYj So that is where I am at, I thought that was the job done however when creating a logical volume called test and mounting it is /mnt/test the sequential write is pathetic, 60 ish MB/s /dev/md3 has 2 x SSD's in Raid0 which alone is performing at around 800 MB/s sequential write and I am trying to cache /dev/md2 which is 6 x 1TB drives in raid6 I have read a number of pages through the day and some of them here, it is obvious from the results that the cache is not functioning but I am unsure why. I have added the filter line in the lvm.conf filter = [ "r|/dev/sdb|", "r|/dev/sdc|", "r|/dev/md3|" ] It is probably something silly but the cache is clearly performing no writes so I suspect I am not mapping it or have not mounted the cache correctly. dmsetup status ssdcache: 0 7589810176 flashcache stats: reads(142), writes(0) read hits(133), read hit percent(93) write hits(0) write hit percent(0) dirty write hits(0) dirty write hit percent(0) replacement(0), write replacement(0) write invalidates(0), read invalidates(0) pending enqueues(0), pending inval(0) metadata dirties(0), metadata cleans(0) metadata batch(0) metadata ssd writes(0) cleanings(0) fallow cleanings(0) no room(0) front merge(0) back merge(0) force_clean_block(0) disk reads(9), disk writes(0) ssd reads(133) ssd writes(9) uncached reads(0), uncached writes(0), uncached IO requeue(0) disk read errors(0), disk write errors(0) ssd read errors(0) ssd write errors(0) uncached sequential reads(0), uncached sequential writes(0) pid_adds(0), pid_dels(0), pid_drops(0) pid_expiry(0) lru hot blocks(31136000), lru warm blocks(31136000) lru promotions(0), lru demotions(0) Xenvol-test: 0 10485760 linear I have included as much info as I can think of, look forward to any replies.

    Read the article

  • How do I tell mdadm to start using a missing disk in my RAID5 array again?

    - by Jon Cage
    I have a 3-disk RAID array running in my Ubuntu server. This has been running flawlessly for over a year but I was recently forced to strip, move and rebuild the machine. When I had it all back together and ran up Ubuntu, I had some problems with disks not being detected. A couple of reboots later and I'd solved that issue. The problem now is that the 3-disk array is showing up as degraded every time I boot up. For some reason it seems that Ubuntu has made a new array and added the missing disk to it. I've tried stopping the new 1-disk array and adding the missing disk, but I'm struggling. On startup I get this: root@uberserver:~# cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : [linear] [multipath] [raid0] [raid1] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [raid10] md_d1 : inactive sdf1[2](S) 1953511936 blocks md0 : active raid5 sdg1[2] sdc1[3] sdb1[1] sdh1[0] 2930279808 blocks level 5, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [4/4] [UUUU] I have two RAID arrays and the one that normally pops up as md1 isn't appearing. I read somewhere that calling mdadm --assemble --scan would re-assemble the missing array so I've tried first stopping the existing array that ubuntu started: root@uberserver:~# mdadm --stop /dev/md_d1 mdadm: stopped /dev/md_d1 ...and then tried to tell ubuntu to pick the disks up again: root@uberserver:~# mdadm --assemble --scan mdadm: /dev/md/1 has been started with 2 drives (out of 3). So that's started md1 again but it's not picking up the disk from md_d1: root@uberserver:~# cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : [linear] [multipath] [raid0] [raid1] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [raid10] md1 : active raid5 sde1[1] sdf1[2] 3907023872 blocks level 5, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [3/2] [_UU] md_d1 : inactive sdd1[0](S) 1953511936 blocks md0 : active raid5 sdg1[2] sdc1[3] sdb1[1] sdh1[0] 2930279808 blocks level 5, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [4/4] [UUUU] What's going wrong here? Why is Ubuntu trying to pick up sdd into a different array? How do I get that missing disk back home again? [Edit] - After adding the md1 to mdadm.conf it now tries to mount the array on startup but it's still missing the disk. If I tell it to try and assemble automatically I get the impression it know it needs sdd but can't use it: root@uberserver:~# mdadm --assemble --scan /dev/md1: File exists mdadm: /dev/md/1 already active, cannot restart it! mdadm: /dev/md/1 needed for /dev/sdd1... What am I missing?

    Read the article

  • What is the meaning of the 'Personalities' feature under /proc/mdstat

    - by drcelus
    On some systems I see this : Personalities : [linear] [raid0] [raid1] [raid10] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [multipath] [faulty] md1 : active raid1 sdb1[1] sda1[0] 10485696 blocks [2/2] [UU] md2 : active raid1 sdb2[1] sda2[0] 477371328 blocks [2/2] [UU] And other systems show : Personalities : [raid1] md0 : active raid1 sdb2[1] sda2[0] 204788 blocks super 1.0 [2/2] [UU] md1 : active raid1 sdb1[1] sda1[0] 4193272 blocks super 1.1 [2/2] [UU] md2 : active raid1 sda3[0] sdb3[1] 483985276 blocks super 1.1 [2/2] [UU] bitmap: 0/4 pages [0KB], 65536KB chunk I wonder what is the meaning of Personalities and the impact of having different values.

    Read the article

  • FreeNas on Dell Powervault 745N: 2TB Limit?

    - by willoller
    I want to purchase 2 x 2TB drives, and install FreeNas on my Dell Powervault 745N. People on the internets seem to be having trouble with the MD3000 firmware, and I want to make sure I can solve any issues before buying the drives. Before I invest, I have 3 questions : Is there a partition size limit determined by the RAID controller? That is, could I have a striped 4TB partition? The spec sheets make me wonder if the RAID controller needs all 4 drives in order to work. Is there any reason this will have to run in RAID5? If I buy 4 matching drives, would the controller support a RAID6 configuration? I'm basically new to all this RAID stuff - sorry for any noob questions.

    Read the article

  • Must partprobe before using drive?

    - by Jeff Welling
    This is a followup question to Cannot mount /dev/sdc1 on Debian 5.0, special device /dev/sdc1 doesn't exist Basically, I have 6 SATA hard drives in a machine and I'm trying to create a RAID6 array with them. When I try to run the mdadm command to create (with the verbose option) a raid array, I see messages like "mdadm: super1.x cannot open /dev/sdf1: No such device or address" which are resolved by doing partprobe /dev/sdf and then re-running the mdadm command. The problem is that I have to run partprobe after each reboot, and from experience I don't think this is normal behaviour -- on no other linux machine do I have to partprobe the device before I can use it. Something must be going wrong, but how do I troubleshoot this to find out what? Could this be caused by a hardware problem? Edit: Additional note - before I seemed to only have this problem with one drive, but now I'm having it with 3 drives.

    Read the article

  • Speedup vmware esx guest hdd access

    - by Uwe
    Hello, we run several windows servers and windows clients on our vmware esx. One of the Windows 2003 Servers is a build-server with major HDD-reads/writes. as it is our build server. This machine was a hardware before and was virtualized to the ESX. Is there any way to increase the HDD-Performance? Perhaps there are special windows (guest) drivers? The files are stored on a Raid6 base. Performance graph of vmware infrastructure client shows reads up to 650 KBps and writes up to 4000 KBps. Thank you. Regards, Uwe

    Read the article

  • hyper-v multiple virtual machines with >2TB volumes from one raid

    - by wurlog
    I have a server with two Raids. Raid 0: 2x 1TB Raid 6: 8x 2TB The first raid I used for the hyper-v installation itself. The virtual machines should use the Raid 6, but how can I config it? I need at least one file server with the most of the disc space (maybe a second). But every vhd has a maximum of 2 TB and I can't use the volume directly because other virtual machines have to have access the Raid6. What do I do?

    Read the article

  • Anyone tried dd'ing Raidmembers?

    - by DusteD
    I want replace all disks in a 10 disk raid6 (linux software raid). I could do this by pulling a disk, let the array rebuild, rinse, repeat. But this would take a very long time, and cause 10 rebuilds, which would most likely stress all 10 disks much more than simply reading each disk through once. My question is thus: Could I just shut down the array, and dd each old disk to a new disk and then start the array with the 10 new disks? In an ideal world, I would build another server and just copy the data via network, but this is not an ideal world.

    Read the article

  • mdadm - Recovering a 'split' RAID1 array

    - by Hamza
    I have two drives that used to be part of a single RAID1 volume but it appears that one of them went offline for some time, something I've noticed just now when I rebooted my system. I now seem to have two RAID volumes, as reported by: # cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : [linear] [multipath] [raid0] [raid1] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [raid10] md126 : active raid1 sdc[1] 2096116 blocks super 1.2 [2/1] [_U] md127 : active (auto-read-only) raid1 sdb[0] 2096116 blocks super 1.2 [2/1] [U_] unused devices: <none> Not exactly sure where to go from here. How can I merge and re-sync these volumes without data loss? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Can I get redundancy with a JBOD storage subsystem

    - by Dat Chu
    I have a Promise Technology J610S. This is a JBOD subsystem. Is it possible for me to buy a SAS hardware RAID controller and provide some type of redundancy for these drives? I am unsure whether I will use Linux or Windows yet so an answer with enumeration for both would be highly appreciated. One solution that I thought of was: if my J610s can export each drive as a target, my server will simply see 16 drives. The RAID controller can then perform the RAID5/RAID6 if I want.

    Read the article

  • Disk fragmentation when dealing with many small files

    - by Zorlack
    On a daily basis we generate about 3.4 Million small jpeg files. We also delete about 3.4 Million 90 day old images. To date, we've dealt with this content by storing the images in a hierarchical manner. The heriarchy is something like this: /Year/Month/Day/Source/ This heirarchy allows us to effectively delete days worth of content across all sources. The files are stored on a Windows 2003 server connected to a 14 disk SATA RAID6. We've started having significant performance issues when writing-to and reading-from the disks. This may be due to the performance of the hardware, but I suspect that disk fragmentation bay be a culprit at well. Some people have recommended storing the data in a database, but I've been hesitant to do this. An other thought was to use some sort of container file, like a VHD or something. Does anyone have any advice for mitigating this kind of fragmentation?

    Read the article

  • Resize2fs at 81h and counting

    - by Adam
    Setup: 12x 1TB drives in a RAID6 (MDADM) crypt-setup running ontop of MDADM LVM running on the crypted drives EXT4 on the LVM Background: I added a new drive to the RAID (increasing from 11 to 12 drives), and 'bubbled' up through the layers (MDADM, etc...) to reizing the ext4 partition. This machine is used as a centralized repository for photography and as a backup server (for both Windows and Mac machines) so bringing it down to add the drive and wait for the resizing and everything wasn't really an option. So I started the resize operation several days ago. HTOP is reporting the resize2fs operation as running for 81h now. DMESG and syslog are both clear, and the drives are still accessable. The resize command reports it's started an online resize of the partition, so the process IS running, and it is burning through 100% of one of my cores. Question: Is it normal for the operation to take this long or has something gone horribly wrong? Where would I start looking for signs of trouble?

    Read the article

  • mdadm starts resync on every boot

    - by Anteru
    Since a few days (and I'm positive it started shortly before I updated my server from 13.04-13.10) my mdadm is resyncing on every boot. In the syslog, I get the following output [ 0.809256] md: linear personality registered for level -1 [ 0.811412] md: multipath personality registered for level -4 [ 0.813153] md: raid0 personality registered for level 0 [ 0.815201] md: raid1 personality registered for level 1 [ 1.101517] md: raid6 personality registered for level 6 [ 1.101520] md: raid5 personality registered for level 5 [ 1.101522] md: raid4 personality registered for level 4 [ 1.106825] md: raid10 personality registered for level 10 [ 1.935882] md: bind<sdc1> [ 1.943367] md: bind<sdb1> [ 1.945199] md/raid1:md0: not clean -- starting background reconstruction [ 1.945204] md/raid1:md0: active with 2 out of 2 mirrors [ 1.945225] md0: detected capacity change from 0 to 2000396680192 [ 1.945351] md: resync of RAID array md0 [ 1.945357] md: minimum _guaranteed_ speed: 1000 KB/sec/disk. [ 1.945359] md: using maximum available idle IO bandwidth (but not more than 200000 KB/sec) for resync. [ 1.945362] md: using 128k window, over a total of 1953512383k. [ 2.220468] md0: unknown partition table I'm not sure what's up with that detected capacity change, looking at some old logs, this does have appeared earlier as well without a resync right afterwards. In fact, I let it run yesterday until completion and rebooted, and then it wouldn't resync, but today it does resync again. For instance, yesterday I got: [ 1.872123] md: bind<sdc1> [ 1.950946] md: bind<sdb1> [ 1.952782] md/raid1:md0: active with 2 out of 2 mirrors [ 1.952807] md0: detected capacity change from 0 to 2000396680192 [ 1.954598] md0: unknown partition table So it seems to be a problem that the RAID array does not get marked as clean after every shutdown? How can I troubleshoot this? The disks themselves are both fine, SMART tells me no errors, everything ok.

    Read the article

  • How to re-add RAID-10 dropped drive?

    - by thiesdiggity
    I have a problem that I can't seem to solve. We have a Ubuntu server setup with RAID-10 and two of the drives dropped out of the array. When I try to re-add them using the following command: mdadm --manage --re-add /dev/md2 /dev/sdc1 I get the following error message: mdadm: Cannot open /dev/sdc1: Device or resource busy When I do a "cat /proc/mdstat" I get the following: Personalities : [linear] [multipath] [raid0] [raid1] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [r$ md2 : active raid10 sdb1[0] sdd1[3] 1953519872 blocks 64K chunks 2 near-copies [4/2] [U__U] md1 : active raid1 sda2[0] sdc2[1] 468853696 blocks [2/2] [UU] md0 : active raid1 sda1[0] sdc1[1] 19530688 blocks [2/2] [UU] unused devices: <none> When I run "/sbin/mdadm --detail /dev/md2" I get the following: /dev/md2: Version : 00.90 Creation Time : Mon Sep 5 23:41:13 2011 Raid Level : raid10 Array Size : 1953519872 (1863.02 GiB 2000.40 GB) Used Dev Size : 976759936 (931.51 GiB 1000.20 GB) Raid Devices : 4 Total Devices : 2 Preferred Minor : 2 Persistence : Superblock is persistent Update Time : Thu Oct 25 09:25:08 2012 State : active, degraded Active Devices : 2 Working Devices : 2 Failed Devices : 0 Spare Devices : 0 Layout : near=2, far=1 Chunk Size : 64K UUID : c6d87d27:aeefcb2e:d4453e2e:0b7266cb Events : 0.6688691 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State 0 8 17 0 active sync /dev/sdb1 1 0 0 1 removed 2 0 0 2 removed 3 8 49 3 active sync /dev/sdd1 Output of df -h is: Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/md1 441G 2.0G 416G 1% / none 32G 236K 32G 1% /dev tmpfs 32G 0 32G 0% /dev/shm none 32G 112K 32G 1% /var/run none 32G 0 32G 0% /var/lock none 32G 0 32G 0% /lib/init/rw tmpfs 64G 215M 63G 1% /mnt/vmware none 441G 2.0G 416G 1% /var/lib/ureadahead/debugfs /dev/mapper/RAID10VG-RAID10LV 1.8T 139G 1.6T 8% /mnt/RAID10 When I do a "fdisk -l" I can see all the drives needed for the RAID-10. The RAID-10 is part of the /dev/mapper, could that be the reason why the device is coming back as busy? Anyone have any suggestions on what I can try to get the drives back into the array? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Raid 5 mdadm Problem - Help Please

    - by user66260
    My Raid 5 array (4 1tb Disks WD10EARS) had was showing as degraded. I looked and one of the disks wasnt installed, so i re-added it with the mdadm add command. the array is now showing as (null)Array , but cant be mounted if i run: root@warren-P5K-E:/home/warren# sudo mdadm --misc --detail /dev/md0 I get: mdadm: cannot open /dev/md0: No such file or directory and running: root@warren-P5K-E:/home/warren# cat /proc/mdstat gives me: Personalities : [linear] [multipath] [raid0] [raid1] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [raid10] unused devices: < none > The data is very important root@warren-P5K-E:/home/warren# mdadm --examine /dev/sda /dev/sda: Magic : a92b4efc Version : 0.90.00 UUID : 00000000:00000000:00000000:00000000 Creation Time : Sat May 26 12:08:14 2012 Raid Level : -unknown- Raid Devices : 0 Total Devices : 4 Preferred Minor : 0 Update Time : Sat May 26 12:08:40 2012 State : active Active Devices : 0 Working Devices : 4 Failed Devices : 0 Spare Devices : 4 Checksum : 82d5b792 - correct Events : 1 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State this 1 8 0 1 spare /dev/sda 0 0 8 16 0 spare /dev/sdb 1 1 8 0 1 spare /dev/sda 2 2 8 32 2 spare /dev/sdc 3 3 8 48 3 spare /dev/sdd root@warren-P5K-E:/home/warren# mdadm --examine /dev/sdb /dev/sdb: Magic : a92b4efc Version : 0.90.00 UUID : 00000000:00000000:00000000:00000000 Creation Time : Sat May 26 12:08:14 2012 Raid Level : -unknown- Raid Devices : 0 Total Devices : 4 Preferred Minor : 0 Update Time : Sat May 26 12:08:40 2012 State : active Active Devices : 0 Working Devices : 4 Failed Devices : 0 Spare Devices : 4 Checksum : 82d5b7a0 - correct Events : 1 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State this 0 8 16 0 spare /dev/sdb 0 0 8 16 0 spare /dev/sdb 1 1 8 0 1 spare /dev/sda 2 2 8 32 2 spare /dev/sdc 3 3 8 48 3 spare /dev/sdd root@warren-P5K-E:/home/warren# oot@warren-P5K-E:/home/warren# mdadm --examine /dev/sdc /dev/sdc: Magic : a92b4efc Version : 0.90.00 UUID : 00000000:00000000:00000000:00000000 Creation Time : Sat May 26 12:08:14 2012 Raid Level : -unknown- Raid Devices : 0 Total Devices : 4 Preferred Minor : 0 Update Time : Sat May 26 12:08:40 2012 State : active Active Devices : 0 Working Devices : 4 Failed Devices : 0 Spare Devices : 4 Checksum : 82d5b7b4 - correct Events : 1 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State this 2 8 32 2 spare /dev/sdc 0 0 8 16 0 spare /dev/sdb 1 1 8 0 1 spare /dev/sda 2 2 8 32 2 spare /dev/sdc 3 3 8 48 3 spare /dev/sdd root@warren-P5K-E:/home/warren# mdadm --examine /dev/sdd /dev/sdd: Magic : a92b4efc Version : 0.90.00 UUID : 00000000:00000000:00000000:00000000 Creation Time : Sat May 26 12:08:14 2012 Raid Level : -unknown- Raid Devices : 0 Total Devices : 4 Preferred Minor : 0 Update Time : Sat May 26 12:08:40 2012 State : active Active Devices : 0 Working Devices : 4 Failed Devices : 0 Spare Devices : 4 Checksum : 82d5b7c6 - correct Events : 1 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State this 3 8 48 3 spare /dev/sdd 0 0 8 16 0 spare /dev/sdb 1 1 8 0 1 spare /dev/sda 2 2 8 32 2 spare /dev/sdc 3 3 8 48 3 spare /dev/sdd That on the 4 drives.

    Read the article

  • Do I have to worry about "error: superfluous RAID member"?

    - by 0xC0000022L
    When running update-grub on the newly installed Ubuntu 12.04 with an older software RAID (md), I get: error: superfluous RAID member (5 found). error: superfluous RAID member (5 found). Generating grub.cfg ... error: superfluous RAID member (5 found). error: superfluous RAID member (5 found). error: superfluous RAID member (5 found). error: superfluous RAID member (5 found). error: superfluous RAID member (5 found). error: superfluous RAID member (5 found). error: superfluous RAID member (5 found). error: superfluous RAID member (5 found). error: superfluous RAID member (5 found). error: superfluous RAID member (5 found). error: superfluous RAID member (5 found). Found linux image: /boot/vmlinuz-3.2.0-24-generic Found initrd image: /boot/initrd.img-3.2.0-24-generic error: superfluous RAID member (5 found). error: superfluous RAID member (5 found). error: superfluous RAID member (5 found). error: superfluous RAID member (5 found). Found linux image: /boot/vmlinuz-3.2.0-23-generic Found initrd image: /boot/initrd.img-3.2.0-23-generic error: superfluous RAID member (5 found). error: superfluous RAID member (5 found). error: superfluous RAID member (5 found). error: superfluous RAID member (5 found). error: superfluous RAID member (5 found). Found memtest86+ image: /boot/memtest86+.bin error: superfluous RAID member (5 found). error: superfluous RAID member (5 found). error: superfluous RAID member (5 found). error: superfluous RAID member (5 found). error: superfluous RAID member (5 found). Found Debian GNU/Linux (5.0.9) on /dev/sdb1 Found Debian GNU/Linux (5.0.9) on /dev/sdc1 done I would be less worried if the message would say warning: ..., but since it says error: ... I'm wondering what the problem is. # cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : [linear] [multipath] [raid0] [raid1] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [raid10] md2 : active raid1 sdc1[1] sdb1[0] 48829440 blocks [2/2] [UU] md3 : active raid1 sdc2[1] sdb2[0] 263739008 blocks [2/2] [UU] md1 : active raid5 sdg1[3] sdf1[2] sde1[1] sdh1[0] sdi1[4] sdd1[5](S) 1250274304 blocks level 5, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [5/5] [UUUUU] unused devices: <none> Do I have to worry or is this harmless? btw: disregard the mentioning of Debian 5.0.9, that was the previously installed system and is going to be overwritten. It's on /dev/md2 actually.

    Read the article

  • How can I fix my corrupted RAID1 ext4 partition on a Synology DS212 NAS?

    - by Neil
    I have two identical 3 TB disks that were in a RAID1 array, where one disk crashed. I replaced the failed disk, but not after the RAID partitions got messed up. I need to figure out how to restore the RAID array and get at my ext4 partition. Here are the properties of the surviving disk: # fdisk -l /dev/sda fdisk: device has more than 2^32 sectors, can't use all of them Disk /dev/sda: 2199.0 GB, 2199023255040 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 267349 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 1 267350 2147483647+ ee EFI GPT # parted /dev/sda print Model: ATA ST3000DM001-9YN1 (scsi) Disk /dev/sda: 3001GB Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B Partition Table: gpt Disk Flags: Number Start End Size File system Name Flags 1 131kB 2550MB 2550MB ext4 raid 2 2550MB 4698MB 2147MB linux-swap(v1) raid 5 4840MB 3001GB 2996GB raid I replaced the failed drive, and cloned the surviving drive to it so I have something to work with. I cloned the drives with dd if=/dev/sdb of=/dev/sda conv=noerror bs=64M, and now /dev/sda and /dev/sdb are identical. Here is the RAID information: # cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : [linear] [raid0] [raid1] [raid10] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] md1 : active raid1 sdb2[1] 2097088 blocks [2/1] [_U] md0 : active raid1 sdb1[1] 2490176 blocks [2/1] [_U] unused devices: <none> It seems that md2 is missing. Here is what testdisk 6.14-WIP finds: Disk /dev/sda - 3000 GB / 2794 GiB - CHS 364801 255 63 Current partition structure: Partition Start End Size in sectors 1 P Linux Raid 256 4980735 4980480 [md0] 2 P Linux Raid 4980736 9175039 4194304 [md1] Invalid RAID superblock 5 P Linux Raid 9453280 5860519007 5851065728 5 P Linux Raid 9453280 5860519007 5851065728 # After a quick search Disk /dev/sda - 3000 GB / 2794 GiB - CHS 364801 255 63 Partition Start End Size in sectors D MS Data 256 4980607 4980352 [1.41.12-2197] D Linux Raid 256 4980735 4980480 [md0] D Linux Swap 4980736 9174895 4194160 D Linux Raid 4980736 9175039 4194304 [md1] >P MS Data 9481056 5858437983 5848956928 [1.41.12-2228] And listing the files on the last partition in the list shows all of my files intact. What should I do?

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu raid 1 write errors

    - by Micah
    I have an Ubuntu server set up with two SATA drives in a RAID 1 configuration with MDADM. The machine is used to record raw video, which involves a lot of writing to the disk. Sometimes during video recording the computer will crash, will the following errors in kern.log: Mar 15 10:39:41 video kernel: [414501.629864] ata2.00: exception Emask 0x10 SAct 0x0 SErr 0x400100 action 0x6 Mar 15 10:39:41 video kernel: [414501.629870] ata2.00: BMDMA stat 0x26 Mar 15 10:39:41 video kernel: [414501.629875] ata2.00: SError: { UnrecovData Handshk } Mar 15 10:39:41 video kernel: [414501.629880] ata2.00: failed command: WRITE DMA EXT Mar 15 10:39:41 video kernel: [414501.629889] ata2.00: cmd 35/00:00:28:6d:f6/00:04:06:00:00/e0 tag 0 dma 524288 out Mar 15 10:39:41 video kernel: [414501.629891] res 51/84:b1:77:6e:f6/84:02:06:00:00/e0 Emask 0x30 (host bus error) Mar 15 10:39:41 video kernel: [414501.629896] ata2.00: status: { DRDY ERR } Mar 15 10:39:41 video kernel: [414501.629899] ata2.00: error: { ICRC ABRT } Mar 15 10:39:41 video kernel: [414501.629910] ata2.00: hard resetting link Mar 15 10:39:41 video kernel: [414501.973009] ata2.01: hard resetting link Mar 15 10:39:41 video kernel: [414502.482642] ata2.00: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123 SControl 300) Mar 15 10:39:41 video kernel: [414502.482658] ata2.01: SATA link down (SStatus 0 SControl 300) Mar 15 10:39:41 video kernel: [414502.546160] ata2.00: configured for UDMA/133 Mar 15 10:39:41 video kernel: [414502.546203] ata2: EH complete Is this the result of faulty drives? Is software RAID just not performant enough for data rates ~15 MB/s, even with a quad-core i7? Thanks for your help. Edit: cat /proc/mdstat returns this: Personalities : [linear] [multipath] [raid0] [raid1] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [raid10] md0 : active raid1 sdb1[1] sda1[0] 976760768 blocks [2/2] [UU] unused devices: <none>

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4  | Next Page >