Search Results

Search found 1864 results on 75 pages for 'raid 0'.

Page 31/75 | < Previous Page | 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38  | Next Page >

• Dell PowerEdge 6850 Degraded HDD

  - by Matt

  Good Morning, We have a dell power edge 6850 with a degraded drive in the RAID array. I have never had to recover such an issue, so any help or advice would be welcome. Basically it hasn't affected the server at an operating system level, but has slowed down performance, I have a replacement drive in hand but as this is our main database server I want to proceed with extreme caution. My options as I see them are - Can I just hot swap the degraded drive with the new one and the data will automatically re-sync and we are all back to normal presumably this is dependant on the current raid configuration? reading various comments on-line I may need to re-configure the RAID array and re-build the broken drive? This screams disaster to me with the main worry being that I wipe any other data. Option 1 would of course make my day. Thanks in advance

  Read the article

• Clone a Red Hat RAID as part of a disaster recovery plan

  - by Campo

  I am looking for recommendations to clone a Red Hat mirrored raid to a single hard drive located in the same machine. The idea is if the servers hardware ever has an issue we have a similar hardware machine ready to go. All we would have to do is pop in the cloned drive. If the servers RAID ever failed we could just switch to the single drive to maintain uptime and restore the original configuration on the spare server with a backup. This is a restaurant and they are open 7 days a week. We do have time from 12:am to 9:00am to perform the necessary steps for a clone and we talking about under 10 Gigs of information. There is a database on the server. I have looked into Rsync and Clonezilla. But I am just not confident either is capable of completing the task I want. Looking for some suggestions and possibly a step by step if you could be so kind.

  Read the article

• X58 RAID 10 - Am I forced to use Sata2?

  - by Avi

  I'm building a new dev computer. It will be running a few VMWare Worksation virtual machines. I was advised on Serverfault to use Raid10 for performance. Raid 10 uses 4 disks. I contacted my supplier who suggested a gigabyte X58A motherboard and 4 Western Digital Caviar black 6Gb/s disks. I have checked the spec for the X58A board, however, and it says: SATA 3Gb/s: RAID 0, RAID 1, RAID 5, and RAID 10 SATA 6Gb/s: RAID 0, and RAID 1. I'm losing half the bandwidth because I'm forced to use SATA2! What should I do?

  Read the article

• Lustre - is this bad form?

  - by ethrbunny

  Im going to be consolidating several 'server rooms' into a single installation soon. Part of this effort will be finding a home for 5Tb (and growing) of files / logs. To this end Im looking at Lustre and appreciating its ability to scale. The big vendors want to sell me a $20K SAN to manage this but Im wondering about buying several iSCSI units (like this http://www.asacomputers.com/3U-iSCSI-Solution.html) and using VMs for the OSS machines. This would let me fail-over to cover problems and not require a dedicated system for each OSS. Given articles like this (http://h30565.www3.hp.com/t5/Feature-Articles/RAID-Is-Dead-Long-Live-RAID/ba-p/1422) that talk about how RAID is not keeping up with drive density Im leaning towards more disks with lower capacity each. Again - some akin to the iSCSI array above. Tell me why this is a terrible idea. Do I really need to invest in a PE710 for each OSS/OST?

  Read the article

• What does the the reconstruction process of mdadm do exactly on raid10

  - by Azrael

  I've got a system with 4 disks set up as raid10. All disks are usable, and mdadm all states them with UUUU. Due to a recent system crash, the raid is currently reconstruction the raid as it was marked as "not clean," and a reconstruction process was started. On a closer look smartctl shows problems on one disk: sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Unhandled sense code sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Result: hostbyte=DID_OK driverbyte=DRIVER_SENSE sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Sense Key : Medium Error [current] [descriptor] Descriptor sense data with sense descriptors (in hex): 72 03 11 04 00 00 00 0c 00 0a 80 00 00 00 00 00 24 cd 78 d4 sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Add. Sense: Unrecovered read error - auto reallocate failed sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] CDB: Read(10): 28 00 24 cd 75 1e 00 04 00 00 With a research about the reconstruction process, I only found information concerning raid5 but nothing for raid10. Can I replace this problematic disk during the reconstruction process, or will I kill the raid with this?

  Read the article

• Raid 5 scsi fault

  - by HaLaBi

  I have no much knowledge about servers and I was looking all day around the internet about finding a solution to my raid 5 problem. All of a sudden two disks failed. The server won't boot (HP Proliant, windows 2003 R2, very old maybe 10 years old). I know that if one disk is faulty then I can add a new disk and rebuild it and things will be fine, the problem is two went faulty :( is this normal? two at the same time? is there any other thing I can do and I am not aware of? other than taking them out and reinserting them back? Windows won't boot. The Array menu shows that disks 0 and 4 are "Missing". Any other tricks or things to do? It is important because for some unknown reason the back up job did not work for a month and I just found out, so I need to make these raid 5 back online again.

  Read the article

• Restoring raid 5 array after bios flash

  - by cogergo

  I have just flashed my BIOS and now my machine does not detect my raid5 array! It has three 2TB drives in it so that is a LOT of data that will be lost! I have NOT deleted the array and it does not offer me to reboot I'm using Nvidia MediaShield! and Windows 7. Any ideas guys? Thanks! Update: here is the GUI raid configuration. As you see it shows one disk in the array but for some reason not the other two! Click for image of raid configuration error

  Read the article

• Server refuses to boot when Raid5 disk is disconnected - /root/ missing

  - by Ronni

  I recently set up a NAS server running a Debian OS (6.0.4) It contains 4 disks, 3 of them are in a Raid5 array, while the last one is used for the OS. To simulate a disk-failure I unplugged one of the raid disks, which resulted in the OS being unable to boot. It started the boot, recognized that md0 (the raid array) was running on 2/3 disks, and then threw a few errors. It was unable to find the following directories: /dev/root on /root, /dev on /root/dev, /sys on /root/sys, /proc on /root/proc It appears this happens regardless of which raid disk is removed. These directories are supposed to be on /dev/sdd my system disk. Output from fstab and blkid : http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6017799/NASOutput.txt If you need additional info, please let me know.

  Read the article

• HP SmartArray P400: How to repair failed logical drive?

  - by TegtmeierDE

  I have a HP Server with SmartArray P400 controller (incl. 256 MB Cache/Battery Backup) with a logicaldrive with replaced failed physicaldrive that does not rebuild. This is how it looked when I detected the error: ~# /usr/sbin/hpacucli ctrl slot=0 show config Smart Array P400 in Slot 0 (Embedded) (sn: XXXX) array A (SATA, Unused Space: 0 MB) logicaldrive 1 (698.6 GB, RAID 1, OK) physicaldrive 1I:1:1 (port 1I:box 1:bay 1, SATA, 750 GB, OK) physicaldrive 1I:1:2 (port 1I:box 1:bay 2, SATA, 750 GB, OK) array B (SATA, Unused Space: 0 MB) logicaldrive 2 (2.7 TB, RAID 5, Failed) physicaldrive 1I:1:3 (port 1I:box 1:bay 3, SATA, 750 GB, OK) physicaldrive 1I:1:4 (port 1I:box 1:bay 4, SATA, 750 GB, OK) physicaldrive 2I:1:5 (port 2I:box 1:bay 5, SATA, 750 GB, OK) physicaldrive 2I:1:6 (port 2I:box 1:bay 6, SATA, 750 GB, Failed) physicaldrive 2I:1:7 (port 2I:box 1:bay 7, SATA, 750 GB, OK) unassigned physicaldrive 2I:1:8 (port 2I:box 1:bay 8, SATA, 750 GB, OK) ~# I thought that I had drive 2I:1:8 configured as a spare for Array A and Array B, but it seems this was not the case :-(. I noticed the problem due to I/O errors on the host, even if only 1 physicaldrive of the RAID5 is failed. Does someone know why this could happen? The logicaldrive should go into "Degraded" mode but still be fully accessible from the host os!? I first tried to add the unassigned drive 2I:1:8 as a spare to logicaldrive 2, but this was not possible: ~# /usr/sbin/hpacucli ctrl slot=0 array B add spares=2I:1:8 Error: This operation is not supported with the current configuration. Use the "show" command on devices to show additional details about the configuration. ~# Interestingly it is possible to add the unassigned drive to the first array without problems. I thought maybe the controller put the array into "failed" state due to the missing spare and protects failed arrays from modification. So I tried was to reenable the logicaldrive (to add the spare afterwards): ~# /usr/sbin/hpacucli ctrl slot=0 ld 2 modify reenable Warning: Any previously existing data on the logical drive may not be valid or recoverable. Continue? (y/n) y Error: This operation is not supported with the current configuration. Use the "show" command on devices to show additional details about the configuration. ~# But as you can see, re-enabling the logicaldrive this was not possible. Now I replaced the failed drive by hotswapping it with the unassigned drive. The status now looks like this: ~# /usr/sbin/hpacucli ctrl slot=0 show config Smart Array P400 in Slot 0 (Embedded) (sn: XXXX) array A (SATA, Unused Space: 0 MB) logicaldrive 1 (698.6 GB, RAID 1, OK) physicaldrive 1I:1:1 (port 1I:box 1:bay 1, SATA, 750 GB, OK) physicaldrive 1I:1:2 (port 1I:box 1:bay 2, SATA, 750 GB, OK) array B (SATA, Unused Space: 0 MB) logicaldrive 2 (2.7 TB, RAID 5, Failed) physicaldrive 1I:1:3 (port 1I:box 1:bay 3, SATA, 750 GB, OK) physicaldrive 1I:1:4 (port 1I:box 1:bay 4, SATA, 750 GB, OK) physicaldrive 2I:1:5 (port 2I:box 1:bay 5, SATA, 750 GB, OK) physicaldrive 2I:1:6 (port 2I:box 1:bay 6, SATA, 750 GB, OK) physicaldrive 2I:1:7 (port 2I:box 1:bay 7, SATA, 750 GB, OK) ~# The logical drive is still not accessible. Why is it not rebuilding? What can I do? FYI, this is the configuration of my controller: ~# /usr/sbin/hpacucli ctrl slot=0 show Smart Array P400 in Slot 0 (Embedded) Bus Interface: PCI Slot: 0 Serial Number: XXXX Cache Serial Number: XXXX RAID 6 (ADG) Status: Enabled Controller Status: OK Chassis Slot: Hardware Revision: Rev E Firmware Version: 5.22 Rebuild Priority: Medium Expand Priority: Medium Surface Scan Delay: 15 secs Surface Analysis Inconsistency Notification: Disabled Raid1 Write Buffering: Disabled Post Prompt Timeout: 0 secs Cache Board Present: True Cache Status: OK Accelerator Ratio: 25% Read / 75% Write Drive Write Cache: Disabled Total Cache Size: 256 MB No-Battery Write Cache: Disabled Cache Backup Power Source: Batteries Battery/Capacitor Count: 1 Battery/Capacitor Status: OK SATA NCQ Supported: True ~# Thanks for you help in advance.

  Read the article

• how to backup from opensuse 10.1 server to a new server with opensuse 12.1

  - by jarus

  Im a newbie for this , i want to copy all the files from my old server which is running opensuse 10.1 with a software raid 1 to a new server which has open suse 12.1 with a hardware raid 1 , i had set up a backup script on the old server which back's up all the folders into a zip file onto an external drive . Can i just get that zip file and copy it to the new server , will that work , it might be a basic and stupid question but i want to learn and do it right. Any help , tutorials, links or suggestions will be greatly appreciated Thanks in Advance

  Read the article

• fdisk (linux) partitioning raid0

  - by Silverrocker

  I'm trying to create partitions for a slackware instalation on my computer (beside Windows 7) just to have a nice distro running mostly for school but when I run fdisk and print the partitiontable I get the following message: Partition x does not end on cylinder boundary. (in my case x = 1, just using x to help googlers). I must say I'm using a raid card (AMCC 3ware 9500S SATA RAID Controller). Maybe this is the problem. How can I fix this without loosing any data?

  Read the article

• Intel Matrix Storage Manager not showing on Asus P5W DH Deluxe?

  - by Leon

  I have set, under "Main" - "IDE Configuration" - "Configure SATA as" to "Raid" and "Onboard Serial-ATA BootRom" to "Enabled", but upon POST I still do not see the Intel Matrix Storage Manager screen where I can press Ctrl+I to set up my raid? I have the latest BIOS version EDIT: Although I had set the rom to "enabled", I then went and reset the bios settings to default. I then set the bootrom setting to "disabled", restarted and then "enabled" again and it seemed to work.

  Read the article

• convert full-disk RAID5 array to partition-based array?

  - by Delan Azabani

  I have a RAID 5 array, md0, with three full-disk (non-partitioned) members, sdb, sdc, and sdd. My computer will hang during the AHCI BIOS if AHCI is enabled instead of IDE, if these drives are plugged in. I believe it may be because I'm using the whole disk, and the AHCI BIOS expects an MBR to be on the drive (I don't know why it would care). Is there a way to convert the array to use members sdb1, sdc1 and sdd1, partitioned MBR with 0xFD RAID partitions?

  Read the article

• How much does HDD cache matter with Linux softraid?

  - by Jawa

  I'm in a process of renewing/expanding my disk sets, but not quite sure what kind of disks to get, cache-wise. What difference does disk cache amount of 16/32/64MB do, in capacities of, say, 1/1.5/2TB SATA disks? The disks will be used in a webapp server and in a media workstation, with Linux's softraid in raid-1/raid-5 configurations. Note, that as both purposes are purely for a hobby, the pricetag for a dozen of disks is a big issue.

  Read the article

• Ubunt doesn't mount one of my NTFS disks

  - by Jader Dias

  There is a mountable /dev/sda NTFS formatted (Windows disk) There is no /dev/sdb when I ls /dev (NTFS Data disk) There is a /dev/sdc which is another disk of the same model, (Ubuntu disk) I can see that Ubuntu detected this unmountable disk in the Disk Utility It states incorrectly it is unpartioned and a RAID volume. (it previously was RAID0 setup with /dev/sdc but now it is a simple volume, no RAID whatsoever) When I boot Windows 7, it uses this unmountable disk without a glitch The problem happens in both IDE and AHCI modes Ubuntu 10.04 Lucid Lynx

  Read the article

• What server setup for a small web development company? [closed]

  - by Giordano

  I co-own a company with a friend of mine and we have decided to buy a new server to support our business (our current server is an Asus EEE Box, working great but too limited :) ). I should mention that we are web developers but occasionally we do small-office sys admin. Thus, 99% of time we work on GNU/Linux (mainly Ubuntu) but from time to time we need to setup a Windows environment to assist some customers (e.g. setup a temporary SQL Server 2008). Our requirements: Low budget: we don't want the cheapest solution out there but we can't afford to spend too much. Budget could be ~1000-1500€ (before VAT) Robustness: we would like to setup a RAID array and maybe have an external disk where we can store backups Virtualization: we need to be able to setup few servers for development. The scenario is something like this (~8 appliances running in parallel): Redmine + GIT server Bacula server FTP server 3-4 virtual appliances that could be set up on demand to test our applications or support a customer. The appliances could be: LAMP, Tomcat+PostgreSQL, SQL Server Support: if something breaks down it shouldn't be too difficult to find a replacement. Now, given the main requirements, there are some doubts we need to clarify: Do you suggest to buy a prepackaged solution (for example a customized Dell PowerEdge T110 or T310) or to assemble the server by ourselves (buy the separate components)? What RAID configuration do you suggest? I was thinking of RAID1 (probably cheaper) or RAID5. should we buy a hardware RAID controller or is it ok to use a software RAID (mdadm)? In case, which controller do you suggest? What processor do you suggest (Intel Xeon, i3, i5, i7, AMD)? How much RAM? (I was thinking at least 8GB, ~1GB per appliance) What virtualization software do you recommend? VMWare seems to be the best choice, but what about XEN or KVM? We don't want to buy licenses at the moment so we would like to consider only free options. What OS do you recommend? We know Ubuntu, Debian, Gentoo very well (we would like to use Ubuntu Server), however it seems a lot of people goes for CentOS. Thanks in advance if you can help us with this! It's our first "serious" server so many doubts popped up :) Please feel free to add further recommendations if you have some to share ;) Have a nice day

  Read the article

• what is the a good hardware for a small business server? [closed]

  - by mans

  I need to setup a server for our small team. I neeed to install: 1- a version control application 2- Continus built application (the application needs to be built on windows) 3- WIKI 4- project managment software 5- issue tracking software 6- file sharing I think I need a raid 1 server for mirroring. Since it is not a database server, I am not interestred in raid 0. What is a suitable hardware for this server and where can I buy it in UK?

  Read the article

• WDS updating raid drivers in an already existing image WIM

  - by Tim

  Here is my current setup. WDS installed on Server 2008 R2 for the new driverstore and multicast features. A Windows Server 2003 32bit Standard image built to support previous DL360 models. A new HP DL360 G6 which has a new raid controller in it. I need to add the driver for the raid controller into my Server 2003 32bit standard install image but I can't seem to figure out the correct method to do so. So far I've tried the following: Mounting the image and placing the drivers into the Sysprep drivers folder, adding the PCI device codes into the sysprep.inf file and committing the changes to the image. Pushing the image to a DL360 G4, ensuring the driver is in the correct locations and re-sysprepping the image. Hoping that the new driverstore feature would magically work with 2003 (a guy can dream cant he?) Is there some standard method that I can use to update this image with the new drivers or do I need to start from scratch with an entirely new build? Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• FreeBSD ZFS RAID-Z2 performance issues

  - by Axel Gneiting

  I'm trying to build my own network attached storage based on FreeBSD+ZFS+standard components, but there are strange performance issues. The hardware specs are: AMD Athlon II X2 240e processor ASUS M4A78LT-M LE mainboard 2GiB Kingston ECC DDR3 (two sticks) Intel Pro/1000 CT PCIe network adapter 5x Western Digital Caviar Green 1.5TB I created a RAID-Z2 zpool from all disks. I installed FreeBSD 8.1 on that zpool following the tutorial. The SATA controllers are running in AHCI mode. Output of zpool status: pool: zroot state: ONLINE scrub: none requested config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM zroot ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz2 ONLINE 0 0 0 gptid/7ef815fc-eab6-11df-8ea4-001b2163266d ONLINE 0 0 0 gptid/80344432-eab6-11df-8ea4-001b2163266d ONLINE 0 0 0 gptid/81741ad9-eab6-11df-8ea4-001b2163266d ONLINE 0 0 0 gptid/824af5cb-eab6-11df-8ea4-001b2163266d ONLINE 0 0 0 gptid/82f98a65-eab6-11df-8ea4-001b2163266d ONLINE 0 0 0 The problem is that write performance on the pool is very very bad (<10 MB/s) and every application that is accessing the disk is unresponsive every few seconds when writing. It seems like writing is fine until the ZFS ark cache is full and then ZFS stalls the entire system I/O till it's finished writing that data. Also I'm getting kmem_malloc to small kernel panics. I've already tried to put vm.kmem_size="1500M" vm.kmem_size_max="1500M" into /boot/loader.conf, but it doesn't help. Does anyone know what's going on here? Am I really not having enough memory for ZFS to handle this RAID-Z2?

  Read the article

• Server 2008 RAID 5 Write Speeds

  - by Solipsism

  I recently configured a RAID 5 partition in Server 2008 with 4 RAID 5 disks. These disks are connected through a SATA expansion card that uses PCIe. This morning, I checked and they had finally finished synchronizing, and so I tried to do some speed tests. Copying off the disks started pretty much fine - speeds began at 125MB/s, then trailed down to about 70MB/s, which I found odd but not worrying. Writing TO the disks however is a completely different story. I attempted to copy some of my VM host ISOs onto the disks (~2-4 GB apiece) and this resulted in speeds of approximately 10MB/s. I tried copying both from a local disk (connected directly to the motherboard) and from another server ththe gigabit network and results were the same. I checked the performance monitor while transferring the files and the only thing that stuck out was that my memory hard faults shot up to 6,000 per minute (spiking around 200/s) by explorer.exe. The system is running 2GB of DDR667 ECC RAM and a quad-core 2.3GHz opteron. Is there anything I can do to fix this performance issue (buy more RAM? move the drives to a faster box?, etc) or am I just screwed so long as I stick to windows.

  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

• [Ubuntu 10.04] mdadm - Can't get RAID5 Array To Start

  - by Matthew Hodgkins

  Hello, after a power failure my RAID array refuses to start. When I boot I have to sudo mdadm --assemble --force /dev/md0 /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdc1 /dev/sdd1 /dev/sde1 /dev/sdf1 /dev/sdg1 to get mdadm to notice the array. Here are the details (after I force assemble). sudo mdadm --misc --detail /dev/md0: /dev/md0: Version : 00.90 Creation Time : Sun Apr 25 01:39:25 2010 Raid Level : raid5 Used Dev Size : 1465135872 (1397.26 GiB 1500.30 GB) Raid Devices : 6 Total Devices : 6 Preferred Minor : 0 Persistence : Superblock is persistent Update Time : Thu Jun 17 23:02:38 2010 State : active, Not Started Active Devices : 6 Working Devices : 6 Failed Devices : 0 Spare Devices : 0 Layout : left-symmetric Chunk Size : 128K UUID : 44a8f730:b9bea6ea:3a28392c:12b22235 (local to host hodge-fs) Events : 0.1249691 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State 0 8 65 0 active sync /dev/sde1 1 8 81 1 active sync /dev/sdf1 2 8 97 2 active sync /dev/sdg1 3 8 49 3 active sync /dev/sdd1 4 8 33 4 active sync /dev/sdc1 5 8 17 5 active sync /dev/sdb1 mdadm.conf: # by default, scan all partitions (/proc/partitions) for MD superblocks. # alternatively, specify devices to scan, using wildcards if desired. DEVICE partitions /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdb1 # auto-create devices with Debian standard permissions CREATE owner=root group=disk mode=0660 auto=yes # automatically tag new arrays as belonging to the local system HOMEHOST <system> # definitions of existing MD arrays ARRAY /dev/md0 level=raid5 num-devices=6 UUID=44a8f730:b9bea6ea:3a28392c:12b22235 Any help would be appreciated.

  Read the article

• How to stop RAID5 array while it is shown to be busy?

  - by RCola

  I have a raid5 array and need to stop it, but while trying to stop it getting error. # cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : [linear] [multipath] [raid0] [raid1] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [raid10] md0 : active raid5 sde1[3](F) sdc1[4](F) sdf1[2] sdd1[1] 2120320 blocks level 5, 32k chunk, algorithm 2 [3/2] [_UU] unused devices: <none> # mdadm --stop mdadm: metadata format 00.90 unknown, ignored. mdadm: metadata format 00.90 unknown, ignored. mdadm: No devices given. # mdadm --stop /dev/md0 mdadm: metadata format 00.90 unknown, ignored. mdadm: metadata format 00.90 unknown, ignored. mdadm: fail to stop array /dev/md0: Device or resource busy and # lsof | grep md0 md0_raid5 965 root cwd DIR 8,1 4096 2 / md0_raid5 965 root rtd DIR 8,1 4096 2 / md0_raid5 965 root txt unknown /proc/965/exe # cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : [linear] [multipath] [raid0] [raid1] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [raid10] md0 : active raid5 sde1[3](F) sdc1[4](F) sdf1[2] sdd1[1] 2120320 blocks level 5, 32k chunk, algorithm 2 [3/2] [_UU] # grep md0 /proc/mdstat md0 : active raid5 sde1[3](F) sdc1[4](F) sdf1[2] sdd1[1] # grep md0 /proc/partitions 9 0 2120320 md0 While booting, md1 is mounted ok but md0 failed for some unknown reason # dmesg | grep md[0-9] [ 4.399658] raid5: allocated 3179kB for md1 [ 4.400432] raid5: raid level 5 set md1 active with 3 out of 3 devices, algorithm 2 [ 4.400678] md1: detected capacity change from 0 to 2121793536 [ 4.403135] md1: unknown partition table [ 38.937932] Filesystem "md1": Disabling barriers, trial barrier write failed [ 38.941969] XFS mounting filesystem md1 [ 41.058808] Ending clean XFS mount for filesystem: md1 [ 46.325684] raid5: allocated 3179kB for md0 [ 46.327103] raid5: raid level 5 set md0 active with 2 out of 3 devices, algorithm 2 [ 46.330620] md0: detected capacity change from 0 to 2171207680 [ 46.335598] md0: unknown partition table [ 46.410195] md: recovery of RAID array md0 [ 117.970104] md: md0: recovery done. # cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : [linear] [multipath] [raid0] [raid1] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [raid10] md0 : active raid5 sde1[0] sdf1[2] sdd1[1] 2120320 blocks level 5, 32k chunk, algorithm 2 [3/3] [UUU] md1 : active raid5 sdc2[0] sdf2[2] sde2[3](S) sdd2[1] 2072064 blocks level 5, 128k chunk, algorithm 2 [3/3] [UUU]

  Read the article

• How to create a software raid5 array without a spare

  - by Yannick M.

  I am trying to create a software raid5 array using mdadm: $ linux # mdadm --create --verbose /dev/md0 --level=5 --raid-devices=4 --spare-devices=0 /dev/sda1 /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdc1 /dev/sdd1 mdadm: layout defaults to left-symmetric mdadm: chunk size defaults to 64K mdadm: array /dev/md0 started. However when inspecting /proc/mdstat Personalities : [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] md0 : active raid5 sdd1[4] sdc1[2] sdb1[1] sda1[0] 2930279808 blocks level 5, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [4/3] [UUU_] [>....................] recovery = 0.3% (2970496/976759936) finish=186.1min speed=87172K/sec unused devices: <none> It seems one drive isn't active, so I check the details of the array: /dev/md0: Version : 00.90.03 Creation Time : Tue Jul 21 16:29:53 2009 Raid Level : raid5 Array Size : 2930279808 (2794.53 GiB 3000.61 GB) Used Dev Size : 976759936 (931.51 GiB 1000.20 GB) Raid Devices : 4 Total Devices : 4 Preferred Minor : 0 Persistence : Superblock is persistent Update Time : Tue Jul 21 16:29:53 2009 State : clean, degraded, recovering Active Devices : 3 Working Devices : 4 Failed Devices : 0 Spare Devices : 1 Layout : left-symmetric Chunk Size : 64K Rebuild Status : 0% complete UUID : ce8b2f40:821d003c:0027688e:a70977ec Events : 0.1 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State 0 8 1 0 active sync /dev/sda1 1 8 17 1 active sync /dev/sdb1 2 8 33 2 active sync /dev/sdc1 4 8 49 3 spare rebuilding /dev/sdd1 And it seems there are only 3 active devices, with one spare. Is it just me, or something wrong here?

  Read the article

• Decrease in disk performance after partitioning and encryption, is this much of a drop normal?

  - by Biohazard

  I have a server that I only have remote access to. Earlier in the week I repartitioned the 2 disk raid as follows: Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/mapper/sda1_crypt 363G 1.8G 343G 1% / tmpfs 2.0G 0 2.0G 0% /lib/init/rw udev 2.0G 140K 2.0G 1% /dev tmpfs 2.0G 0 2.0G 0% /dev/shm /dev/sda5 461M 26M 412M 6% /boot /dev/sda7 179G 8.6G 162G 6% /data The raid consists of 2 x 300gb SAS 15k disks. Prior to the changes I made, it was being used as a single unencrypted root parition and hdparm -t /dev/sda was giving readings around 240mb/s, which I still get if I do it now: /dev/sda: Timing buffered disk reads: 730 MB in 3.00 seconds = 243.06 MB/sec Since the repartition and encryption, I get the following on the separate partitions: Unencrypted /dev/sda7: /dev/sda7: Timing buffered disk reads: 540 MB in 3.00 seconds = 179.78 MB/sec Unencrypted /dev/sda5: /dev/sda5: Timing buffered disk reads: 476 MB in 2.55 seconds = 186.86 MB/sec Encrypted /dev/mapper/sda1_crypt: /dev/mapper/sda1_crypt: Timing buffered disk reads: 150 MB in 3.03 seconds = 49.54 MB/sec I expected a drop in performance on the encrypted partition, but not that much, but I didn't expect I would get a drop in performance on the other partitions at all. The other hardware in the server is: 2 x Quad Core Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5405 @ 2.00GHz and 4gb RAM $ cat /proc/scsi/scsi Attached devices: Host: scsi0 Channel: 00 Id: 32 Lun: 00 Vendor: DP Model: BACKPLANE Rev: 1.05 Type: Enclosure ANSI SCSI revision: 05 Host: scsi0 Channel: 02 Id: 00 Lun: 00 Vendor: DELL Model: PERC 6/i Rev: 1.11 Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 05 Host: scsi1 Channel: 00 Id: 00 Lun: 00 Vendor: HL-DT-ST Model: CD-ROM GCR-8240N Rev: 1.10 Type: CD-ROM ANSI SCSI revision: 05 I'm guessing this means the server has a PERC 6/i RAID controller? The encryption was done with default settings during debian 6 installation. I can't recall the exact specifics and am not sure how I go about finding them? Thanks

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38  | Next Page >