Search Results

Search found 112 results on 5 pages for 'raid0'.

Page 3/5 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5  | Next Page >

  • Where is my VMware-ws FreeNAS CIFS(ZFS) bottle-neck?

    - by maka
    Background: I'm building a quiet HTPC + NAS that is also supposed to be used for general computer usage. I'm so far generally happy with things, it was just that I was expecting a little better IO performance. I have no clue if my expectations are unreal. The NAS is there as a general purpose file storage and as a media server for XBMC and other devices. ZFS is a requirement. Question: Where is my bottle-neck, and is there anything I can do config wise, to improve my performance? I'm thinking VM-disk settings could be something but I really have no idea where to go since I'm neither experienced with FreeNAS nor VMware-WS. Tests: When I'm on the host OS and copy files (from the SSD) to the CIFS share, I get around 30 Mbytes/sec read and write. When I'm on my laptop laptop, wired to the network, I get about the same specs. The test I've done are with a 16 GB ISO, and with about 200 MB of RARs and I've tried avoiding the RAM-cache by reading different files than the ones I'm writing ( 10 GB). It feels like having less CPU cores is a lot more efficient, since the resource manager in Windows reports less CPU-usage. With 4 cores in VMware, CPU usage was 50-80%, with 1 core it was 25-60%. EDIT: HD ActiveTime was quite high on SSD so I moved the page file, disabled hibernate and enabled Win DiskCache both on SSD and RAID. This resulted in no real performance difference for one file, but if i transferred 2 files the total speed went up to 50 Mbytes/s vs ~40. The ActiveTime avg also went down a lot (to ~20%) but has now higher bursts. DiskIO is on ~ 30-35 Mbytes/s avgs, with ~100Mb bursts. Network is on 200-250Mbits/s with ~45 active TCP connections. Hardware Asus F2A85-M Pro A10-5700 16GB DDR3 1600 OCZ Vertex 2 128GB SSD 2x Generic 1tb 7200 RPM drives as RAID0 (in win7) Intel Gigabit Desktop CT Software Host OS: Win7 (SSD) VMware Worksation 9 (SSD) FreeNAS 8.3 VM (20GB VDisk on SSD) CPU: I've tried 1, 2 and 4 cores. Virtualisation engine, Preferred mode: Automatic 10,24Gb ram 50Gb SCSI VDisk on the RAID0, VDisk is formatted as ZFS and exposed through CIFS through FreeNAS. NIC Bridge, Replicate physical network state Below are two typical process print-outs while I'm transfering one file to the CIFS share. last pid: 2707; load averages: 0.60, 0.43, 0.24 up 0+00:07:05 00:34:26 32 processes: 2 running, 30 sleeping Mem: 101M Active, 53M Inact, 1620M Wired, 2188K Cache, 149M Buf, 8117M Free Swap: 4096M Total, 4096M Free PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE TIME WCPU COMMAND 2640 root 1 102 0 50164K 10364K RUN 0:25 25.98% smbd 1897 root 6 44 0 168M 74808K uwait 0:02 0.00% python last pid: 2746; load averages: 0.93, 0.60, 0.33 up 0+00:08:53 00:36:14 33 processes: 2 running, 31 sleeping Mem: 101M Active, 53M Inact, 4722M Wired, 2188K Cache, 152M Buf, 5015M Free Swap: 4096M Total, 4096M Free PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE TIME WCPU COMMAND 2640 root 1 76 0 50164K 10364K RUN 0:52 16.99% smbd 1897 root 6 44 0 168M 74816K uwait 0:02 0.00% python I'm sorry if my question isn't phrased right, I'm really bad at these kind of things, and it is the first time I post here at SU. I also appreciate any other suggestions to something, I could have missed.

    Read the article

  • HP SmartArray P400 has slow read and write speed

    - by Tadas D.
    I have desktop in which I installed HP SmartArray P400 controller with two HP DF0146B8052 hard drives. I made RAID0 logical volume from them, but I am getting 20MB/s write speed and ~140-120MB/s read speed. Also there is quite low scatter for benchmark results (I am getting quite nice line) and it looks like controller is "capping" my speeds. I tried reseting controllers configuration and I haven't found any settings in HP ACU (Array Configuration Utility) to help me. I am using Windows 7 Ultimate and M4A78 board Does anyone have ideas what could be wrong? Also I am attaching diagnostic results.

    Read the article

  • LVM2 vs MDADM performance

    - by archer
    I've used MDADM + LVM2 on many boxes for quite a while. MDADM was serving for both RAID0 and RAID1 arrays, while LVM2 where used for logical volumes on top of MDADM. Recently I've found that LVM2 could be used w/o MDADM (thus minus one layer, as the result - less overhead) for both mirroring and stripping. However, some guys claims that READ PERFORMANCE on LVM2 for mirrored array is not that fast as for LVM2 (linear) on top of MDADM (RAID1) as LVM2 does not read from 2+ devices at a time, but use 2nd and higher devices in case of 1st device failure. MDADM reads from 2 devices at a time (even in mirrored mode). Who could confirm that?

    Read the article

  • RAID5 and different sizes of HDDs

    - by MyFlower
    Today I set up my first RAID ever. I decided to use RAID5, because I want as much space as possible, but I'm to afraid to use RAID0 because of possible data loss. I have 4 0,5TB drives and in RAID5 I have about 1,36TB usable. That's fine by me. Now I have a question. I'm thinking about purchasing a 2TB drive and can't figure out if it is possible to add it to this RAID (4*0,5TB + 1*2TB HDD) and how much space will I gain. I hope someone can answer me, it would help a lot! Thank you in advance.

    Read the article

  • mdadm auto grow raid

    - by johannes
    I have a raid0/1 on lvm logical volumes. I resized the logical volumes. Now I want to resize the raid to use the complete logical volumes. This can be done with mdadm /dev/md? --grow -z newsize But somehow I can't figure out how to calculate the newsize argument. Is there a way to tell mdadm to grow to the biggest possible size? If not, how do I calculate the biggest possible size of the raid to use for the newsize argument?

    Read the article

  • Drawbacks of installing linux on usb stick?

    - by Znarkus
    I am setting up a router/nas/http/whatever server based on an ION mini-ITX board. I've installed Ubuntu Server on an old 160 GB drive, but it generates a lot more heat and vibrates more than my other new drive (storage). It just doesn't fit the concept, and worse: it takes up a SATA port. As SSD's are crazy expensive I'm thinking of buying an extra 4 GB USB stick, and raid0 it. From my point of view, these are the pros/cons: Pros Low power consumption No vibrations No heat Smaller Get to buy new, larger USB stick (:D) Cons Shorter life time Slower Raid 0 More work maintaing/installing? I think the pros overweighs the cons. Shorter life time and raid 0 is countered by regular backups of the configs/settings. Slower is partially countered by raid 0, and I don't know about the last one. What do You think? Experience? Another solution?

    Read the article

  • reclaime like, recovery software

    - by Bou
    I need a recovery software that has the features of reclaime file recovery. Those are, to be able to read image files, to keep folder structure, to be as efficient but to be free. I can't afford reclaime and all free software that i know out there either support folder structure but cannot read an image of the array created or the opposite. Can somebody suggest some software? PS: I used reclaime to create an image of my RAID0 broken array and with reclaime file recovery i can see all my files intact but i cannot recover without purchase.

    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

  • How is it possible for SSD's drives to have such a good latency?

    - by tigrou
    First time i read some information about SSD's, i was surprised to learn they internally use NAND flash chips. This kind of memory is generally slow (low bandwidth) and have high latency while SSD's are just the opposite. But here is how it works : SSD drives increase their bandwidth by using several NAND flash chips in parallel. In other words, they do some data striping (aka RAID0) across several chips (done by the controller). What i don't understand is how SSD's drives have such a low latency, whereas they are using NAND chips? (or at least lot better than what a typical single NAND chip would do) EDIT: I think under-estimate NAND chip capabilities. USB drives, while powered by NAND's are mostly limited by USB protocol (which have a pretty high latency) and the USB controller. That explain their poor performance in some cases.

    Read the article

  • How SSD's drives reduce their latency?

    - by tigrou
    First time i read some information about SSD's, i was surprised to learn they internally use NAND flash chips. This kind of memory is generally slow (low bandwidth) and have high latency while SSD's are just the opposite. But here is how it works : SSD drives increase their bandwidth by using several NAND flash chips in parallel. In other words, they do some data striping (aka RAID0) across several chips (done by the controller). What i don't understand is how SSD's drives managed to reduce latency? (or at least lot better than what a single NAND chip without any controller can do)

    Read the article

  • Most efficient hard drive configuration for multitasking system

    - by user99391
    I hope I didn’t screw up the tile. Currently I’m using for my system 2x500g Raid0 system. I’m thinking about an upgrade but I got hold up by few questions. I need at least 100-120 gb for my system and apps and looking for a technological upgrade also. I've end up with 3 choices. Single 120 ssd (sata 6 drive) 2x60 ssd drives, but I've heard it's not possible. PCI ssd drive (~120gb). They all have very similar read/write values and prices but I was wondering if anyone could give some tips on which way to go. I run win7x64 and do a lot of multitasking(especially adobe stuff).

    Read the article

  • Moving to an SSD with Windows 7

    - by Nick Gerakines
    Disclaimer: I've been digging around for a few days and didn't get what I was looking for in terms of answers, so I'm asking here. I've recently purchased an 80g SSD drive to use as my boot up and OS parition. I've got a windows 7 desktop with two 1TB (raid0) disks currently and I'm not sure where to start in terms of copying / moving the OS. I suppose that doing a fresh install isn't out of the question, but I've got an upgrade disk from Vista that I'd have to deal with. Where do I begin?

    Read the article

  • grub boot failed after upgrading to ubuntu 12.04 LTS

    - by user138021
    no such disk error occured. I tried to format and reinstall 12.04, the problem remained. I also repaired with boot-repair, the problem remained. http://paste.ubuntu.com/1224005/ is url of the details. server is dell R710, the bios is set to uefi and disk is raid0 gpt. I typed commands in grub rescue: ls (hd0, gpt2), `no such partition' is shown set, `prefix=((null),gpt2)/grub' is shown I don't know why /efi/ubuntu/grubx64.efi doesn't recognize disk. another strange thing is that there is only 1 file in /efi/ubuntu

    Read the article

  • Bootloader error Ubuntu 12.04, system goes to Grub-rescue instead of booting

    - by user83508
    I am trying to install ubuntu 12.04 on my system but it is constantly giving me bootloader install fail error. I have tried to lot to solve this issue but reading articles over the internet but still no gain. Firstly since the bootloader was not getting installed I tried to install it on all the alternative paths given in the installer, failing with I selected install ubuntu without bootloader. Then I tried to manually install bootloader via terminal at try ubuntu via grub-install, but I was not able to do that. Then I tried using boot-repair and it was also not able to install the bootloader because after it my system shows grub-rescue. I tried to use boot-repair and install bootloader on a seperate partition mounted to /boot and still my system is booting and it still shows grub-rescue. The error which my system shows during boot is: Error : no such device : 04ac0510-bd4f-43b8-b885-b885-11c4dec21db8 I am not dual booting and ubuntu is the only OS I am installing. I am using Raid 0 with two blue western digital hard drive so I am not sure whether it is right or not. The details given by boot-repair are in the below mentioned link; http://paste.ubuntu.com/1147208/ Afterwards, I made one more change I installed ubuntu again and this time I installed the bootloader at a different partition on /boot. After this the bootloader error has gone but I am still not able to boot to ubuntu as I get the same error I was getting before. I have not installed dmraid, I feel it is neccessary for Raid0, but I thought ubuntu already has Raid drivers. Moreover in the dmraid installation instructions for 12.04, I used the one for 10.04 and selected to install bootloader at the partitions from the dropdown. This time the installation finished normally without an error but still I am not able to boot my system as the same error shows during booting this time also. Now I am stucked and I have no clue on how I can boot my system. Please tell me how can I boot my system.

    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 can I set up FakeRAID/SoftRAID using mdadm without losing data?

    - by Danatela
    There is RAID0 of 2 drives connected through Silicon Image 3132 SATA SoftRAID controller. Under Windows it was partitioned as one dynamic GPT-disk having 4 TB NTFS volume. There is a lot of music and movies on the drive. I'm trying to get him to be seen under Ubuntu as a single disk, not as 2 by 2 terabytes. I tried to read it through dmraid, had no success, it is not displayed in /dev/mapper. Also tried to configure the kernel, but did not find anything suspicious, the driver for my controller was on. There is also a driver from the manufacturer, but it is only available for RHEL and SLES. Here it's reported that SoftRAID is supported by the kernel, but apparently not completely. If I thrust drives in the AMD controller, built into the motherboard, the drive is seen as a single, but the data is lost. I know about mdadm that it is able to ditch all the information on the disks. So, is it possible to somehow create an array without actually recording information on used drives and to make the system correctly identify sections on it later? Information about the array: /dev/sdf - Disk 0 /dev/sdg - Disk 1 Array type: Stripe Block Size: 64KB Also, a device /dev/md1 is created using command mknod /dev/md1 b 9 1

    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

  • Switching mdadm to an external bitmap

    - by Oli
    I've just read this in another post about improving RAID5/6 write speeds: After increasing stripe cache & switching to external bitmap, my speeds are 160 Mb/s writes, 260 Mb/s reads. :-D I've already found out how to increase the stripe cache and this worked pretty well but I'd like to know more about an external bitmap. I have an incredibly fast (540MB/s) RAID0 SSD that would do well if a bitmap does what I think it does but I'm still very unsure. I've only known about them as long as I've known this post. A few questions: What is a bitmap (in terms of mdadm)? What are the advantages of an internal bitmap (over external)? What are the advantages of an external bitmap (over internal)? How do I switch between the two? I should add that while this is a I'm-bored-let's-break-something thread, I do value the data stored on the RAID array. If doing this is going to put data at significant risk, please let me know.

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Strange performance issue with Dell R7610 and LSI 2208 RAID controller

    - by GregC
    Connecting controller to any of the three PCIe x16 slots yield choppy read performance around 750 MB/sec Lowly PCIe x4 slot yields steady 1.2 GB/sec read Given same files, same Windows Server 2008 R2 OS, same RAID6 24-disk Seagate ES.2 3TB array on LSI 9286-8e, same Dell R7610 Precision Workstation with A03 BIOS, same W5000 graphics card (no other cards), same settings etc. I see super-low CPU utilization in both cases. SiSoft Sandra reports x8 at 5GT/sec in x16 slot, and x4 at 5GT/sec in x4 slot, as expected. I'd like to be able to rely on the sheer speed of x16 slots. What gives? What can I try? Any ideas? Please assist Cross-posted from http://en.community.dell.com/support-forums/desktop/f/3514/t/19526990.aspx Follow-up information We did some more performance testing with reading from 8 SSDs, connected directly (without an expander chip). This means that both SAS cables were utilized. We saw nearly double performance, but it varied from run to run: {2.0, 1.8, 1.6, and 1.4 GB/sec were observed, then performance jumped back up to 2.0}. The SSD RAID0 tests were conducted in a x16 PCIe slot, all other variables kept the same. It seems to me that we were getting double the performance of HDD-based RAID6 array. Just for reference: maximum possible read burst speed over single channel of SAS 6Gb/sec is 570 MB/sec due to 8b/10b encoding and protocol limitations (SAS cable provides four such channels).

    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

  • Why do I get a DegradedArray event with mdadm

    - by azera
    Hello Just so we're clear on what's happening: I bought 4 new sata 2 drives, with the intent of using them in a raid5 all drive are fully recognised by both my bios and my linux box (gentoo) I created a raid5 array, fiddled a bit with it to understand how it works, how to monitor ect At some point, this triggered a degradedarray event, even though the array is brand new. I tried to stopping the array and recreating a new array with the same drive but the new array starts degraded too. here is what I used to create it mdadm --create -l5 -n4 /dev/md/md0-r5 /dev/sdb /dev/sdd /dev/sde /dev/sdf here are the output from my /proc/mdstat and mdadm --detail --scan **mdstat** Personalities : [raid0] [raid1] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [raid10] md127 : active raid5 sdf[4] sde[2] sdd[1] sdb[0] 4395415488 blocks level 5, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [4/3] [UUU_] [>....................] recovery = 2.8% (41689732/1465138496) finish=890.3min speed=26645K/sec unused devices: <none> **detail** ARRAY /dev/md/md0-r5 metadata=0.90 spares=1 UUID=453e2833:81f22a74:64188b84:66721085 As such I have a couple questions: does a raid5 array always start in degraded mode at first ? why does sdf have the number 4 between bracket instead of 3, why does it see a spare disk and why is the 4th drive marked with _ instead of U ? (bad configuration ?) How can I recreate the array from scratch, do i have to format each drive on its own before recreating it ? Thanks for any help, I'm not sure about what I should do at the moment

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5  | Next Page >