Search Results

Search found 303 results on 13 pages for 'raid1'.

Page 6/13 | < Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >

  • error: "net.netfilter.nf_conntrack_acct" is an unknown key

    - by anonymous
    Hello, i have the next error when i run 'sysctl -p' error: "net.netfilter.nf_conntrack_acct" is an unknown key net.netfilter.nf_conntrack_acct = 1 net.ipv4.netfilter.ip_conntrack_max = 9527600 net.ipv4.netfilter.ip_conntrack_tcp_timeout_established = 7200 lsmod ipv6 289352 34 loop 19724 0 nf_conntrack_ipv4 19352 0 nf_conntrack 71440 1 nf_conntrack_ipv4 joydev 15232 0 evdev 14592 0 ext3 125456 3 jbd 54696 1 ext3 mbcache 13188 1 ext3 raid1 24832 4 md_mod 81700 5 raid1 thermal_sys 17728 0 Debian 5.0.8 Any idea? Thanks

    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 does btrfs RAID work in degraded mode?

    - by turbo
    My idea was that (using loopback devices) it works like this Create the raid array sudo mkfs.btrfs -m raid1 -d raid1 /dev/loop1 /dev/loop2 You mount them sudo mount /dev/loop1 /mnt and mark them touch goodcondition You unmount and simulate disk failure (remove disk or delete loopback device loop2 in my case) You mount degraded -o degraded and mark again touch degraded You add the bad disk again sudo btrfs dev add /dev/loop2 You rebalance sudo btrfs fi ba /mnt And Raid 1 should work again. But that's not the case. sudo btrfs fi show: Total devices 3 FS bytes used 28.00KB devid 3 size 4.00GB used 264.00MB path /dev/loop1 devid 2 size 4.00GB used 272.00MB path /dev/loop2 *** Some devices missing The file degraded lives on loop1 but not on loop2 when loop2 is mounted in degraded mode. Why is that?

    Read the article

  • Raid superblock missing on single parition. Recovery needed!

    - by user171639
    Ok so I have a 2 TB raid 1 setup that has three partitions: sdc1: linux sdc2: swap sdc3: LVM for data However the LVM will no longer mount. So I thought that I would take the first drive, mount it in linux (ive done this b4), and reset the spare drive to copy the data. Normally I can mount a single drive for data recovery using: sudo su apt-get install mdadm lvm2 mdadm --assemble --scan modprobe dm-mod vgscan vgchange -ay c mount -o ro /dev/c/c /mnt Unfortunately, vgscan doesnot recognize the data partition. It appears as though the superblock on the first drive's data partition was erased while syncing with the second. So now I cannot mount that partition and the second drive is stuck in spare mode. Any ideas? Or a way to force mount the data partition just to copy the data? knoppix@Microknoppix:~$ sudo su root@Microknoppix:/home/knoppix# apt-get install mdadm lvm2 Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done lvm2 is already the newest version. mdadm is already the newest version. 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 551 not upgraded. root@Microknoppix:/home/knoppix# mdadm --assemble --scan mdadm: /dev/md/1 has been started with 1 drive (out of 2). mdadm: /dev/md/0 has been started with 1 drive (out of 2). root@Microknoppix:/home/knoppix# modprobe dm-mod root@Microknoppix:/home/knoppix# vgscan Reading all physical volumes. This may take a while... No volume groups found root@Microknoppix:/home/knoppix# cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : [raid1] md0 : active raid1 sdc1[2] 4193268 blocks super 1.2 [2/1] [U_] md1 : active raid1 sdc2[2] 524276 blocks super 1.2 [2/1] [U_] unused devices: <none> root@Microknoppix:/home/knoppix# mdadm -v --assemble --auto=yes /dev/md2 /dev/sdc3 mdadm: looking for devices for /dev/md2 mdadm: no recogniseable superblock on /dev/sdc3 mdadm: /dev/sdc3 has no superblock - assembly aborted root@Microknoppix:/home/knoppix# dumpe2fs /dev/md0 | grep -i superblock dumpe2fs 1.42.4 (12-Jun-2012) Primary superblock at 0, Group descriptors at 1-1 Backup superblock at 32768, Group descriptors at 32769-32769 Backup superblock at 98304, Group descriptors at 98305-98305 Backup superblock at 163840, Group descriptors at 163841-163841 Backup superblock at 229376, Group descriptors at 229377-229377 Backup superblock at 294912, Group descriptors at 294913-294913 Backup superblock at 819200, Group descriptors at 819201-819201 Backup superblock at 884736, Group descriptors at 884737-884737 root@Microknoppix:/home/knoppix# Notes: I can read the super block from the spare drive. I was gonna try and restore the superblock from one of the backups, but i dont know how or if this would work. I also heard creating a new array (mdadm --create) using the same parameters will not delete the data on the drive but i didnt want to risk it. Recommendations?

    Read the article

  • Accessing a broken mdadm raid

    - by CarstenCarsten
    Hi! I used a western digital mybookworld (SOHO NAS storage using Linux) as backup for my Linux box. Suddenly, the mybookworld does not boot up any more. So I opened the box, removed the hard disk and put the hard disk into an external USB HDD case, and connected it to my Linux box. [ 530.640301] usb 2-1: new high speed USB device using ehci_hcd and address 3 [ 530.797630] scsi7 : usb-storage 2-1:1.0 [ 531.794844] scsi 7:0:0:0: Direct-Access WDC WD75 00AAKS-00RBA0 PQ: 0 ANSI: 2 [ 531.796490] sd 7:0:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg3 type 0 [ 531.797966] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdc] 1465149168 512-byte logical blocks: (750 GB/698 GiB) [ 531.800317] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdc] Write Protect is off [ 531.800327] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdc] Mode Sense: 38 00 00 00 [ 531.800333] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdc] Assuming drive cache: write through [ 531.803821] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdc] Assuming drive cache: write through [ 531.803836] sdc: sdc1 sdc2 sdc3 sdc4 [ 531.815831] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdc] Assuming drive cache: write through [ 531.815842] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdc] Attached SCSI disk The dmesg output looks normal, but I was wondering why the hardisk was not mounted at all. And why there are 4 different partitions on it. fdisk showed the following: root@ubuntu:/home/ubuntu# fdisk /dev/sdc WARNING: DOS-compatible mode is deprecated. It's strongly recommended to switch off the mode (command 'c') and change display units to sectors (command 'u'). Command (m for help): p Disk /dev/sdc: 750.2 GB, 750156374016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 91201 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: 0x00007c00 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdc1 4 369 2939895 fd Linux raid autodetect /dev/sdc2 370 382 104422+ fd Linux raid autodetect /dev/sdc3 383 505 987997+ fd Linux raid autodetect /dev/sdc4 506 91201 728515620 fd Linux raid autodetect Oh no! Everything seems to be created as a mdadm software raid. Calling mdadm --examine with the different partitions seems to affirm that. I think the only partition I am interested in, is /dev/sdc4 (because it is the largest). But nevertheless I called mdadm --examine with every partition. root@ubuntu:/home/ubuntu# mdadm --examine /dev/sdc1 /dev/sdc1: Magic : a92b4efc Version : 00.90.00 UUID : 5626a2d8:070ad992:ef1c8d24:cd8e13e4 Creation Time : Wed Feb 20 00:57:49 2002 Raid Level : raid1 Used Dev Size : 2939776 (2.80 GiB 3.01 GB) Array Size : 2939776 (2.80 GiB 3.01 GB) Raid Devices : 2 Total Devices : 1 Preferred Minor : 1 Update Time : Sun Nov 21 11:05:27 2010 State : clean Active Devices : 1 Working Devices : 1 Failed Devices : 1 Spare Devices : 0 Checksum : 4c90bc55 - correct Events : 16682 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State this 0 8 1 0 active sync /dev/sda1 0 0 8 1 0 active sync /dev/sda1 1 1 0 0 1 faulty removed root@ubuntu:/home/ubuntu# mdadm --examine /dev/sdc2 /dev/sdc2: Magic : a92b4efc Version : 00.90.00 UUID : 9734b3ee:2d5af206:05fe3413:585f7f26 Creation Time : Wed Feb 20 00:57:54 2002 Raid Level : raid1 Used Dev Size : 104320 (101.89 MiB 106.82 MB) Array Size : 104320 (101.89 MiB 106.82 MB) Raid Devices : 2 Total Devices : 1 Preferred Minor : 2 Update Time : Wed Oct 27 20:19:08 2010 State : clean Active Devices : 1 Working Devices : 1 Failed Devices : 1 Spare Devices : 0 Checksum : 55560b40 - correct Events : 9884 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State this 0 8 2 0 active sync /dev/sda2 0 0 8 2 0 active sync /dev/sda2 1 1 0 0 1 faulty removed root@ubuntu:/home/ubuntu# mdadm --examine /dev/sdc3 /dev/sdc3: Magic : a92b4efc Version : 00.90.00 UUID : 08f30b4f:91cca15d:2332bfef:48e67824 Creation Time : Wed Feb 20 00:57:54 2002 Raid Level : raid1 Used Dev Size : 987904 (964.91 MiB 1011.61 MB) Array Size : 987904 (964.91 MiB 1011.61 MB) Raid Devices : 2 Total Devices : 1 Preferred Minor : 3 Update Time : Sun Nov 21 11:05:27 2010 State : clean Active Devices : 1 Working Devices : 1 Failed Devices : 1 Spare Devices : 0 Checksum : 39717874 - correct Events : 73678 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State this 0 8 3 0 active sync 0 0 8 3 0 active sync 1 1 0 0 1 faulty removed root@ubuntu:/home/ubuntu# mdadm --examine /dev/sdc4 /dev/sdc4: Magic : a92b4efc Version : 00.90.00 UUID : febb75ca:e9d1ce18:f14cc006:f759419a Creation Time : Wed Feb 20 00:57:55 2002 Raid Level : raid1 Used Dev Size : 728515520 (694.77 GiB 746.00 GB) Array Size : 728515520 (694.77 GiB 746.00 GB) Raid Devices : 2 Total Devices : 1 Preferred Minor : 4 Update Time : Sun Nov 21 11:05:27 2010 State : clean Active Devices : 1 Working Devices : 1 Failed Devices : 1 Spare Devices : 0 Checksum : 2f36a392 - correct Events : 519320 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State this 0 8 4 0 active sync 0 0 8 4 0 active sync 1 1 0 0 1 faulty removed If I read the output correctly everything was removed, because it was faulty. Is there ANY way to see the contents of the largest partition? Or seeing somehow which files are broken? I see that everything is raid1 which is only mirroring, so this should be a normal partition. I am anxious to do anything with mdadm, in fear that I destroy the data on the hard disk. I would be very thankful for any help.

    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

  • Formula to calculate probability of unrecoverable read error during RAID rebuild

    - by OlafM
    I need to compare the reliability of different RAID systems with either consumer or enterprise drives. The formula to have the probability of success of a rebuild, ignoring mechanical problems, is simple: error_probability = 1 - (1-per_bit_error_rate)^bit_read and with 3 TB drives I get 38% probability to experience an URE (unrecoverable read error) for a 2+1 disks RAID5 (4.7% for enterprise drives) 21% for a RAID1 (2.4% for enterprise drives) 51% probability of error during recovery for the 3+1 RAID5 often used by users of SOHO products like Synologys. Most people don't know about this. Calculating the error for single disk tolerance is easy, my question concerns systems tolerant to multiple disks failures (RAID6/Z2, RAIDZ3 and RAID1 with multiple disks). If only the first disk is used for rebuild and the second one is read again from the beginning in case or an URE, then the error probability is the one calculated above squared (14.5% for consumer RAID5 2+1, 4.5% for consumer RAID1 1+2). However, I suppose (at least in ZFS that has full checksums!) that the second parity/available disk is read only where needed, meaning that only few sectors are needed: how many UREs can possibly happen in the first disk? not many, otherwise the error probability for single-disk tolerance systems would skyrocket even more than I calculated. If I'm correct, a second parity disk would practically lower the risk to extremely low values. Am I correct?

    Read the article

  • How to re-add a RAID-10 failed drive on Ubuntu?

    - 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

  • Assembling Software RAID in Live CD for data recovery

    - by Maletor
    I need help recovering some data that's on my RAID which is on a LVM on my server running Ubuntu. What happened was I deleted the logical volume that controlled my swap space which was on a partition on drives sda2, sdb2, sdc2, and sdd2 in RAID1. This foobared my whole system for one reason or another. Booting leave me with grub rescue and an error saying that it is an unknown filesystem. When I boot to a live cd I can see my RAID arrays and I can even start them up. However, it doesn't appear to mount them anywhere so I can't see the data. I am in the live cd now and I have done sudo apt-get install mdadm lvm2 so it should be mounting them correctly. I just can't see why it wouldn't. Please any help is appreciated here. Here is some output. By the way, there are 3 RAIDs, 1) /boot 100mb RAID1, 2) swap 10gb RAID1, 3) root 990GB RAID5 ubuntu@ubuntu:~$ df -h Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on aufs 124M 101M 18M 86% / none 2.0G 324K 2.0G 1% /dev /dev/sde1 2.0G 826M 1.2G 42% /cdrom /dev/loop0 667M 667M 0 100% /rofs none 2.0G 164K 2.0G 1% /dev/shm tmpfs 2.0G 28K 2.0G 1% /tmp none 2.0G 92K 2.0G 1% /var/run none 2.0G 0 2.0G 0% /var/lock none 2.0G 0 2.0G 0% /lib/init/rw /dev/md1 91M 73M 15M 84% /media/5ac3dbf1-a6c5-409c-96ae-edc6e27992c7 ubuntu@ubuntu:~$ cat /etc/fstab aufs / aufs rw 0 0 tmpfs /tmp tmpfs nosuid,nodev 0 0 /dev/sda2 swap swap defaults 0 0 /dev/sdb2 swap swap defaults 0 0 /dev/sdc2 swap swap defaults 0 0 /dev/sdd2 swap swap defaults 0 0

    Read the article

  • Intel Rapid Storage / Smart Response SSD caching issue

    - by goober
    Background Recently built my own PC. It works! Almost. It's been a while since getting into the guts of these things, so I'm familiar but may be missing something simple. FYI, I don't care about blowing the OS away -- it's brand new and we can go back from scratch as many times as necessary. Goal / Issue I'd like to use the SSD to take advantage of Intel's Smart Response technology (allows the SSD to act as a cache for HDDs) I would like the SSD cache to act as a cache for my HDDs, which I would like to be in a RAID1 array (so I get the speed from the SSD and the redundancy from the RAID1) However, Windows only sees the drive in device manager (not as a drive), so I'm unsure what to do about that. Related: as far as I know, for this to work, the drives all have to be in a single RAID array (i.e. a RAID0 pairing of the SSD and the RAID1 HDD array). However, when attempting this at the BIOS level, I am told there is not enough space for an array. Steps so Far Moved the SSD onto the Intel controller (I'd had it on the Marvel 6.0 controller instead of the Intel controller, so the BIOS was only seeing it in a strange way) Updated the BIOS of the motherboard to the latest version Reinstalled Intel's RST (iRST?) software several times, as some forums reported it working after reinstalling 3 times (which does not inspire confidence). Checked Intel storage: it does see the SSD as a physical, non-RAID device. However, it says no space exists if I try to create an array. Checked the BIOS: it does not show up in the boot order, but is an option that can be selected under boot options. Tried the firmware update for that model. Issue: the firmware CD doesn't detect a drive; maybe the Intel storage controller is making it difficult? moved the ssd to the marvel controller. The firmware update cd appeared to hang while searching for drives. swapped out the SATA cable for the manufacturer's and moved back to the intel storage controller. Noticed at this point that in the Intel RST software, a device DOES show up in addition to the RAID set -- only shown as a "60 GB internal disk". Windows doesn't appear to see it as a drive, but it does still show in device manager. Move SSD to port from 0-3 on MOBO and set SATA mode to IDE (after disconnecting RAID1 config) to allow the firmware update to work. Firmware was already at the latest version. Next Steps ? Components involved ASUS P8Z68-V PRO motherboard (Intel Z68 Chipset) Intel i7 2600k Processor 2 x 1TB 7200 RPM HDDs 64 GB Crucial M4 SSD (M4-CT064M4SSD2) For Reference -- Storage Configuration Intel 3 gbps Intel 3gbps Intel 6gbps Marvel 6gbps +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ | | <----+ | | +-+ | | | |----------| | |----------| |-|--------| |----------| | | | | + | | | | | | +----------+ | +--|-------+ +-|--------+ +----------+ | | | + v v | 1 TB HDD 64 GB SSD + +> 1 TB HDD For Reference -- Intel RST (v10.8.0.1003) Screenshot Don't mind the "rebuilding" -- knocked a power cable out at one point; it's doing its job, not an indicator of a bad HDD. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance for any help!

    Read the article

  • Raid 1 array won't assemble after power outage. How do I fix this ext4 mirror?

    - by Forkrul Assail
    Two ext4 drives on Raid 1 with mdadm won't reassemble after the power went out for an extended period (UPS drained). After turning the machine back on, mdadm said that the array was degraded, after which it took about 2 days for a full resync, which completed without problems. On trying to remount the array I get: mount: you must specify the filesystem type cat /etc/fstab lines relevant to setup: /dev/md127 /media/mediapool ext4 defaults 0 0 dmesg | tail (on trying to mount) says: [ 1050.818782] EXT3-fs (md127): error: can't find ext3 filesystem on dev md127. [ 1050.849214] EXT4-fs (md127): VFS: Can't find ext4 filesystem [ 1050.944781] FAT-fs (md127): invalid media value (0x00) [ 1050.944782] FAT-fs (md127): Can't find a valid FAT filesystem [ 1058.272787] EXT2-fs (md127): error: can't find an ext2 filesystem on dev md127. cat /proc/mdstat says: Personalities : [raid1] [linear] [multipath] [raid0] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [raid10] md127 : active (auto-read-only) raid1 sdj[2] sdi[0] 2930135360 blocks super 1.2 [2/2] [UU] unused devices: <none> fsck /dev/md127 says: fsck from util-linux 2.20.1 e2fsck 1.42 (29-Nov-2011) fsck.ext2: Superblock invalid, trying backup blocks... fsck.ext2: Bad magic number in super-block while trying to open /dev/md127 The superblock could not be read or does not describe a correct ext2 filesystem. If the device is valid and it really contains an ext2 filesystem (and not swap or ufs or something else), then the superblock is corrupt, and you might try running e2fsck with an alternate superblock: e2fsck -b 8193 <device> mdadm -E /dev/sdi gives me: /dev/sdi: Magic : a92b4efc Version : 1.2 Feature Map : 0x0 Array UUID : 37ac1824:eb8a21f6:bd5afd6d:96da6394 Name : sojourn:33 Creation Time : Sat Nov 10 10:43:52 2012 Raid Level : raid1 Raid Devices : 2 Avail Dev Size : 5860271016 (2794.40 GiB 3000.46 GB) Array Size : 2930135360 (2794.39 GiB 3000.46 GB) Used Dev Size : 5860270720 (2794.39 GiB 3000.46 GB) Data Offset : 262144 sectors Super Offset : 8 sectors State : clean Device UUID : 3e6e9a4f:6c07ab3d:22d47fce:13cecfd0 Update Time : Tue Nov 13 20:34:18 2012 Checksum : f7d10db9 - correct Events : 27 Device Role : Active device 0 Array State : AA ('A' == active, '.' == missing) boot@boot ~ $ sudo mdadm -E /dev/sdj /dev/sdj: Magic : a92b4efc Version : 1.2 Feature Map : 0x0 Array UUID : 37ac1824:eb8a21f6:bd5afd6d:96da6394 Name : sojourn:33 Creation Time : Sat Nov 10 10:43:52 2012 Raid Level : raid1 Raid Devices : 2 Avail Dev Size : 5860271016 (2794.40 GiB 3000.46 GB) Array Size : 2930135360 (2794.39 GiB 3000.46 GB) Used Dev Size : 5860270720 (2794.39 GiB 3000.46 GB) Data Offset : 262144 sectors Super Offset : 8 sectors State : clean Device UUID : 7fb84af4:e9295f7b:ede61f27:bec0cb57 Update Time : Tue Nov 13 20:34:18 2012 Checksum : b9d17fef - correct Events : 27 Device Role : Active device 1 Array State : AA ('A' == active, '.' == missing) machine@user ~ dmesg | tail [ 61.785866] init: alsa-restore main process (2736) terminated with status 99 [ 68.433548] eth0: no IPv6 routers present [ 534.142511] EXT4-fs (sdi): ext4_check_descriptors: Block bitmap for group 0 not in group (block 2838187772)! [ 534.142518] EXT4-fs (sdi): group descriptors corrupted! [ 546.418780] EXT2-fs (sdi): error: couldn't mount because of unsupported optional features (240) [ 549.654127] EXT3-fs (sdi): error: couldn't mount because of unsupported optional features (240) Since this is Raid 1 it was suggested that I try and mount or fsck the drives separately. After a long fsck on one drive, it ended with this as tail: Illegal double indirect block (2298566437) in inode 39717736. CLEARED. Illegal block #4231180 (2611866932) in inode 39717736. CLEARED. Error storing directory block information (inode=39717736, block=0, num=1092368): Memory allocation failed Recreate journal? yes Creating journal (32768 blocks): Done. *** journal has been re-created - filesystem is now ext3 again *** The drive however still doesn't want to mount: dmesg | tail [ 170.674659] md: export_rdev(sdc) [ 170.675152] md: export_rdev(sdc) [ 195.275288] md: export_rdev(sdc) [ 195.275876] md: export_rdev(sdc) [ 1338.540092] CE: hpet increased min_delta_ns to 30169 nsec [26125.734105] EXT4-fs (sdc): ext4_check_descriptors: Checksum for group 0 failed (43502!=37987) [26125.734115] EXT4-fs (sdc): group descriptors corrupted! [26182.325371] EXT3-fs (sdc): error: couldn't mount because of unsupported optional features (240) [27083.316519] EXT4-fs (sdc): ext4_check_descriptors: Checksum for group 0 failed (43502!=37987) [27083.316530] EXT4-fs (sdc): group descriptors corrupted! Please help me fix this. I never in my wildest nightmares thought a complete mirror would die this badly. Am I missing something? Suggestions on fixing this? Could someone explain why it would resync after the powerout, only to seemingly nuke the drive? Thanks for reading. Any help much appreciated. I've tried everything I can think of, including booting and filesystem checking with SystemRescue and Ubuntu liveboot discs.

    Read the article

  • Reconstructing the disk order in RAID 6 with 7 disks

    - by rkotulla
    a little background to this question first: I am running a RAID-6 within a QNAP TS869L external RAID/NAS system. I started with 5 disks of 3 TB each back in the day, and later added another 2 disks of 3TB to the RAID. The QNAP internals handled the growing and re-syncing etc, and everything seemd to be perfectly fine. About 2 weeks ago, I had one of the disks (disk #5, disk #2 has gone bad in the mean time) fail, and somehow (I have no idea why), also disks 1 and 2 got kicked out of the array. I replaced disk #5, but the RAID didn't start working again. After some calls to QNAP technical support, they re-created the array (using mdadm --create --force --assume-clean ...), but the resulting array couldn't find a filesystem, and I was kindly referred to contact a data recovery company that I can't afford. After some digging through old log files, resetting the disk to factory default, etc, I found a few errors that were made during this re-create - I wish I still had some of the original metadata, but unfortunately i don't (I definitely learned that lesson). I'm currently at the point where I know the correct chunk-size (64K), metadata-version (1.0; factory default was 0.9, but from what I read 0.9 doesn't handle disks over 2 TB, mine are 3 TB), and I now find the ext4 filesystem that should be on the disks. Only variable left to determine is the right disk order! I started using the description found in answer #4 of "Recover RAID 5 data after created new array instead of re-using" but am a little confused on what the order should be for a proper RAID-6. RAID-5 is pretty well documented in a number of places, but RAID-6 much less so. Also, does the layout, i.e. distribution of parity and data chunks across the disks, change after the growing of the array from 5 to 7 disks, or does the re-sync re-organize them in such a way a native 7-disk RAID-6 would have been? Thanks some more mdadm output that might be helpful: mdadm version: [~] # mdadm --version mdadm - v2.6.3 - 20th August 2007 mdadm details from one of the disks in the array: [~] # mdadm --examine /dev/sda3 /dev/sda3: Magic : a92b4efc Version : 1.0 Feature Map : 0x0 Array UUID : 1c1614a5:e3be2fbb:4af01271:947fe3aa Name : 0 Creation Time : Tue Jun 10 10:27:58 2014 Raid Level : raid6 Raid Devices : 7 Used Dev Size : 5857395112 (2793.02 GiB 2998.99 GB) Array Size : 29286975360 (13965.12 GiB 14994.93 GB) Used Size : 5857395072 (2793.02 GiB 2998.99 GB) Super Offset : 5857395368 sectors State : clean Device UUID : 7c572d8f:20c12727:7e88c888:c2c357af Update Time : Tue Jun 10 13:01:06 2014 Checksum : d275c82d - correct Events : 7036 Chunk Size : 64K Array Slot : 0 (0, 1, failed, 3, failed, 5, 6) Array State : Uu_u_uu 2 failed mdadm details for the array in the current disk-order (based on my best guess reconstructed from old log-files) [~] # mdadm --detail /dev/md0 /dev/md0: Version : 01.00.03 Creation Time : Tue Jun 10 10:27:58 2014 Raid Level : raid6 Array Size : 14643487680 (13965.12 GiB 14994.93 GB) Used Dev Size : 2928697536 (2793.02 GiB 2998.99 GB) Raid Devices : 7 Total Devices : 5 Preferred Minor : 0 Persistence : Superblock is persistent Update Time : Tue Jun 10 13:01:06 2014 State : clean, degraded Active Devices : 5 Working Devices : 5 Failed Devices : 0 Spare Devices : 0 Chunk Size : 64K Name : 0 UUID : 1c1614a5:e3be2fbb:4af01271:947fe3aa Events : 7036 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State 0 8 3 0 active sync /dev/sda3 1 8 19 1 active sync /dev/sdb3 2 0 0 2 removed 3 8 51 3 active sync /dev/sdd3 4 0 0 4 removed 5 8 99 5 active sync /dev/sdg3 6 8 83 6 active sync /dev/sdf3 output from /proc/mdstat (md8, md9, and md13 are internally used RAIDs holding swap, etc; the one I'm after is md0) [~] # more /proc/mdstat Personalities : [linear] [raid0] [raid1] [raid10] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [multipath] md0 : active raid6 sdf3[6] sdg3[5] sdd3[3] sdb3[1] sda3[0] 14643487680 blocks super 1.0 level 6, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [7/5] [UU_U_UU] md8 : active raid1 sdg2[2](S) sdf2[3](S) sdd2[4](S) sdc2[5](S) sdb2[6](S) sda2[1] sde2[0] 530048 blocks [2/2] [UU] md13 : active raid1 sdg4[3] sdf4[4] sde4[5] sdd4[6] sdc4[2] sdb4[1] sda4[0] 458880 blocks [8/7] [UUUUUUU_] bitmap: 21/57 pages [84KB], 4KB chunk md9 : active raid1 sdg1[6] sdf1[5] sde1[4] sdd1[3] sdc1[2] sda1[0] sdb1[1] 530048 blocks [8/7] [UUUUUUU_] bitmap: 37/65 pages [148KB], 4KB chunk unused devices: <none>

    Read the article

  • Single/Mulitple LUN for vmware vm hosting

    - by Yucong Sun
    I'm building a iscsi storage system for hosting about ~500 Vmware vm running concurrently. And I have a disk array with 15 disks, I only need moderate write performance but preferably not SPOFed. so, that leaves me with RAID1 / RAID10 , I have couple choices: 1) 3x LUN 4disk RAID10 + 3 hot-swap 2) 1x LUN 14disk RAID10 + 1 hot-swap 3) 7x LUN 2disk RAID1 + 1 host-swap Which way is better? Is there a real problem running 500 vms on single LUN? and would it be better to resort to 7 LUns so each VM is better isolated with each other?

    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

  • Troubleshooting major performance issue: Is culprit Intel RST, Hard drive, or something else?

    - by Sean Killeen
    The Setup I have the following components that come into play in this situation: ASUS P8Z68 V/PRO motherboard a RAID1 configuration (1x 1TB drive, 1 x 2TB drive -- I explain below), accelerated with an SSD using Intel's RST software, and 1 TB drive standing by as a spare. Core i7 2600k 32 GB RAM Windows 8.1 This box was designed to be beast, and until just recently, was very good at being just that. What's Happening The system has slowed to a crawl whenever it touches the disk. Things appear to work at normal speed when dealing with memory. For example, typing this is fine, but saving it to disk from notepad gave me a 5-7 second pause when clicking save. The disks appear to be at 100% all the time (e.g. the light on the disk access on the PC is solidly on -- not even any flashing) In ProcExp it appears that the disk is barely being utilized at all: Intel RST reports that everything is fine: Other Details Prior to this happening, RST had reported that my drives were failing (one went bad, one was throwing SMART events). This made sense; they were at the tail end of their warranty and the PC is on almost all the time. I RMA'd the drives via Seagate. In the meantime, I'd purchased a 2TB drive because I didn't realize that the 1TB drives were under warranty. I figured I'd replace the other 1 TB drive with another 2 TB when it died but then discovered the warranty. AFAIK, I haven't done any major updates since 8.1 and it worked fine after those. Question(s) How can I troubleshoot this? What is the best way to try to figure out why disks are being maxed out despite the OS reporting barely any disk usage and that everything is OK? Given the failures, etc. that I describe above, is it possible that the problem could be the I/O on the motherboard itself? If so, how would I even be able to diagnose it? I'm betting the drives that Seagate gave me are refurbished (didn't think to look; that's dumb). Is it possible that the same model drive, refurbished, could somehow cause this? In terms of how RAID1 works, is it possible that one drive is "falling behind" somehow, and that the RAID1 is constantly trying to fix the mirroring? If so, this seems like Intel RST would report on it, but I wanted to consider it as an option.

    Read the article

  • List of MD /Raid/LVM (Devices) = How to mount them without any further information available?

    - by Jens
    Hello Expets, I do not have much skills in linux and installed a system two years ago that I now had to reboot, but it seems I did not automate everything with start-scripts... My Problem: I miss some mountpoints. I have a list of my raids (excerpt:) md3 : active (auto-read-only) raid1 sda6[0] sdb6[1] 97659008 blocks [2/2] [UU] md4 : active (auto-read-only) raid1 sda7[0] sdb7[1] 250099776 blocks [2/2] [UU] and it seems md3 and md4 are NOT mounted. However i do NOT have any entries for them fstab file. What should I do next. I do NOT know which filesystem they have (most likely ext3). =Can I savely try to mount them with (mount -t ext3 /dev/md3 /mnt/mymntpoint) or will the lead to corrupted data, in case they are not ext3? What should I do next (based on the information given above). The goal is to remount these Devices again, but I do not know anything about them anymore... Thank you very much Jens

    Read the article

  • Why is the latency on one LVM volume consistently higher?

    - by David Schmitt
    I've got a server with LVM over RAID1. One of the volumes has a consistently higher IO latency (as measured by the diskstats_latency munin plugin) than the other volumes from the same group. As you can see, the dark orange /root volume has consistently high IO latency. Actually ten times the average latency of the physical devices. It also has the highest Min and Max values. My main concern are not the peaks, which occur under high load, but the constant load on (semi-)idle. The server is running Debian Squeeze with the VServer kernel and has four VServer containers and one KVM guest. I'm looking for ways to fix - or at least understand - this situation. Here're some parts of the system configuration: root@kvmhost2:~# df -h Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/mapper/system--host-root 19G 3.8G 14G 22% / tmpfs 16G 0 16G 0% /lib/init/rw udev 16G 224K 16G 1% /dev tmpfs 16G 0 16G 0% /dev/shm /dev/md0 942M 37M 858M 5% /boot /dev/mapper/system--host-isos 28G 19G 8.1G 70% /srv/isos /dev/mapper/system--host-vs_a 30G 23G 6.0G 79% /var/lib/vservers/a /dev/mapper/system--host-vs_b 5.0G 594M 4.1G 13% /var/lib/vservers/b /dev/mapper/system--host-vs_c 5.0G 555M 4.2G 12% /var/lib/vservers/c /dev/loop0 4.4G 4.4G 0 100% /media/debian-6.0.0-amd64-DVD-1 /dev/loop1 4.4G 4.4G 0 100% /media/debian-6.0.0-i386-DVD-1 /dev/mapper/system--host-vs_d 74G 55G 16G 78% /var/lib/vservers/d root@kvmhost2:~# cat /proc/mounts rootfs / rootfs rw 0 0 none /sys sysfs rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime 0 0 none /proc proc rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime 0 0 none /dev devtmpfs rw,relatime,size=16500836k,nr_inodes=4125209,mode=755 0 0 none /dev/pts devpts rw,nosuid,noexec,relatime,gid=5,mode=620,ptmxmode=000 0 0 /dev/mapper/system--host-root / ext3 rw,relatime,errors=remount-ro,data=ordered 0 0 tmpfs /lib/init/rw tmpfs rw,nosuid,relatime,mode=755 0 0 tmpfs /dev/shm tmpfs rw,nosuid,nodev,relatime 0 0 fusectl /sys/fs/fuse/connections fusectl rw,relatime 0 0 /dev/md0 /boot ext3 rw,sync,relatime,errors=continue,data=ordered 0 0 /dev/mapper/system--host-isos /srv/isos ext3 rw,relatime,errors=continue,data=ordered 0 0 /dev/mapper/system--host-vs_a /var/lib/vservers/a ext3 rw,relatime,errors=continue,data=ordered 0 0 /dev/mapper/system--host-vs_b /var/lib/vservers/b ext3 rw,relatime,errors=continue,data=ordered 0 0 /dev/mapper/system--host-vs_c /var/lib/vservers/c ext3 rw,relatime,errors=continue,data=ordered 0 0 /dev/loop0 /media/debian-6.0.0-amd64-DVD-1 iso9660 ro,relatime 0 0 /dev/loop1 /media/debian-6.0.0-i386-DVD-1 iso9660 ro,relatime 0 0 /dev/mapper/system--host-vs_d /var/lib/vservers/d ext3 rw,relatime,errors=continue,data=ordered 0 0 root@kvmhost2:~# cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : [raid1] md1 : active raid1 sda2[0] sdb2[1] 975779968 blocks [2/2] [UU] md0 : active raid1 sda1[0] sdb1[1] 979840 blocks [2/2] [UU] unused devices: <none> root@kvmhost2:~# iostat -x Linux 2.6.32-5-vserver-amd64 (kvmhost2) 06/28/2012 _x86_64_ (8 CPU) avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 3.09 0.14 2.92 1.51 0.00 92.35 Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rsec/s wsec/s avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util sda 23.25 161.12 7.46 37.90 855.27 1596.62 54.05 0.13 2.80 1.76 8.00 sdb 22.82 161.36 7.36 37.66 850.29 1596.62 54.35 0.54 12.01 1.80 8.09 md0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.02 38.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 md1 0.00 0.00 53.55 198.16 768.01 1585.25 9.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 dm-0 0.00 0.00 0.48 20.21 16.70 161.71 8.62 0.26 12.72 0.77 1.60 dm-1 0.00 0.00 3.62 10.03 28.94 80.21 8.00 0.19 13.68 1.59 2.17 dm-2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.17 0.00 9.64 6.42 0.00 dm-3 0.00 0.00 6.73 0.41 53.87 3.28 8.00 0.02 3.44 0.12 0.09 dm-4 0.00 0.00 17.45 18.18 139.57 145.47 8.00 0.42 11.81 0.76 2.69 dm-5 0.00 0.00 2.50 46.38 120.50 371.07 10.06 0.69 14.20 0.46 2.26 dm-6 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.10 0.67 0.81 12.53 0.01 75.53 18.58 0.22 dm-7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.99 0.00 11.24 9.45 0.00 dm-8 0.00 0.00 22.69 102.76 407.25 822.09 9.80 0.97 7.71 0.39 4.95 dm-9 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.08 0.50 0.62 8.00 0.07 481.23 11.72 0.16 root@kvmhost2:~# ls -l /dev/mapper/ total 0 crw------- 1 root root 10, 59 May 11 11:19 control lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 Jun 5 15:08 system--host-kvm1 -> ../dm-4 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 Jun 5 15:08 system--host-kvm2 -> ../dm-3 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 Jun 5 15:06 system--host-isos -> ../dm-2 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 May 11 11:19 system--host-root -> ../dm-0 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 Jun 5 15:06 system--host-swap -> ../dm-9 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 Jun 5 15:06 system--host-vs_d -> ../dm-8 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 Jun 5 15:06 system--host-vs_b -> ../dm-6 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 Jun 5 15:06 system--host-vs_c -> ../dm-7 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 Jun 5 15:06 system--host-vs_a -> ../dm-5 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 Jun 5 15:08 system--host-kvm3 -> ../dm-1 root@kvmhost2:~#

    Read the article

  • Upgrading drives on a MD3000

    - by Anonymouse
    Hello, Our MD3000 array is getting full as our databases are growing and we need more spaces. Currently, we use a MD3000 with a two-servers Windows 2003 cluster and 15x 73GB SAS drives. Disk groups are configured in RAID1 of two drives. The approach we are currently investigating is simply swapping the existing SAS drives with bigger ones (300GB instead of 73GB), one at a time, and let each RAID1 array rebuilt. Is it a good approach? Will we be able to resize the array afterwards? Will we be able to resize the partitions afterwards? Can the Dell M3000 Management software do it or will we have to bring the server offline and use some partition software to do it? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Simple mdadm RAID 1 not activating spare

    - by Nick Liu
    I had created two 2TB HDD partitions (/dev/sdb1 and /dev/sdc1) in a RAID 1 array called /dev/md0 using mdadm on Ubuntu 12.04 LTS Precise Pangolin. The command sudo mdadm --detail /dev/md0 used to indicate both drives as active sync. Then, for testing, I failed /dev/sdb1, removed it, then added it again with the command sudo mdadm /dev/md0 --add /dev/sdb1 watch cat /proc/mdstat showed a progress bar of the array rebuilding, but I wouldn't spend hours watching it, so I assumed that the software knew what it was doing. After the progress bar was no longer showing, cat /proc/mdstat displays: md0 : active raid1 sdb1[2](S) sdc1[1] 1953511288 blocks super 1.2 [2/1] [U_] And sudo mdadm --detail /dev/md0 shows: /dev/md0: Version : 1.2 Creation Time : Sun May 27 11:26:05 2012 Raid Level : raid1 Array Size : 1953511288 (1863.01 GiB 2000.40 GB) Used Dev Size : 1953511288 (1863.01 GiB 2000.40 GB) Raid Devices : 2 Total Devices : 2 Persistence : Superblock is persistent Update Time : Mon May 28 11:16:49 2012 State : clean, degraded Active Devices : 1 Working Devices : 2 Failed Devices : 0 Spare Devices : 1 Name : Deltique:0 (local to host Deltique) UUID : 49733c26:dd5f67b5:13741fb7:c568bd04 Events : 32365 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State 1 8 33 0 active sync /dev/sdc1 1 0 0 1 removed 2 8 17 - spare /dev/sdb1 I've been told that mdadm automatically replaces removed drives with spares, but /dev/sdb1 isn't being moved into the expected position, RaidDevice 1. UPDATE (30 May 2012): A badblocks destructive read-write test of the entire /dev/sdb yielded no errors as expected; both HDDs are new. As of the latest edit, I assembled the array with this command: sudo mdadm --assemble --force --no-degraded /dev/md0 /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdc1 The output was: mdadm: /dev/md0 has been started with 1 drive (out of 2) and 1 rebuilding. Rebuilding looks like it's progressing normally: md0 : active raid1 sdc1[1] sdb1[2] 1953511288 blocks super 1.2 [2/1] [U_] [>....................] recovery = 0.6% (13261504/1953511288) finish=2299.7min speed=14060K/sec unused devices: <none> I'm now waiting on this rebuild, but I'm expecting /dev/sdb1 to become a spare just like the five or six times that I've tried rebuilding before. UPDATE (31 May 2012): Yeah, it's still a spare. Ugh! UPDATE (01 June 2012): I'm trying Adrian Kelly's suggested command: sudo mdadm --assemble --update=resync /dev/md0 /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdc1 Waiting on the rebuild now... My questions are: Why isn't the spare drive becoming active sync? How can I make the spare drive become active?

    Read the article

  • How to get an inactive RAID device working again?

    - by Jonik
    After booting, my RAID1 device (/dev/md_d0 *) sometimes goes in some funny state and I cannot mount it. * Originally I created /dev/md0 but it has somehow changed itself into /dev/md_d0. # mount /opt mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/md_d0, missing codepage or helper program, or other error (could this be the IDE device where you in fact use ide-scsi so that sr0 or sda or so is needed?) In some cases useful info is found in syslog - try dmesg | tail or so The RAID device appears to be inactive somehow: # cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : [linear] [multipath] [raid0] [raid1] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [raid10] md_d0 : inactive sda4[0](S) 241095104 blocks # mdadm --detail /dev/md_d0 mdadm: md device /dev/md_d0 does not appear to be active. Question is, how to make the device active again (using mdmadm, I presume)? (Other times it's alright (active) after boot, and I can mount it manually without problems. But it still won't mount automatically even though I have it in /etc/fstab: /dev/md_d0 /opt ext4 defaults 0 0 So a bonus question: what should I do to make the RAID device automatically mount at /opt at boot time?) This is an Ubuntu 9.10 workstation. Background info about my RAID setup in this question. Edit: My /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf looks like this. I've never touched this file, at least by hand. # by default, scan all partitions (/proc/partitions) for MD superblocks. # alternatively, specify devices to scan, using wildcards if desired. DEVICE partitions # 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> # instruct the monitoring daemon where to send mail alerts MAILADDR <my mail address> # definitions of existing MD arrays # This file was auto-generated on Wed, 27 Jan 2010 17:14:36 +0200 In /proc/partitions the last entry is md_d0 at least now, after reboot, when the device happens to be active again. (I'm not sure if it would be the same when it's inactive.) Resolution: as Jimmy Hedman suggested, I took the output of mdadm --examine --scan: ARRAY /dev/md0 level=raid1 num-devices=2 UUID=de8fbd92[...] and added it in /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf, which seems to have fixed the main problem. After changing /etc/fstab to use /dev/md0 again (instead of /dev/md_d0), the RAID device also gets automatically mounted!

    Read the article

  • Possible to use DRBD on two ESXi virtualized servers?

    - by chen
    I have two servers (attached disks have been set up as hardware RAID1 for disk device level failure resilience). Here is the setup in my mind: 1) Install ESXi on each of the physical server, M1, M2; 2) Start one VM on each of the ESXi virtualized physical server V1, V2; 3) Install the DRDB drivers within V1 and V2. Essentially, this is a "virtualizing machine running DRBD in the VM's instead of bare metal hardware" idea. My question is whether the above setup can achieve the same "networked RAID1" goal that DRDB can achieve in the bare-metal physical machines (http://www.drbd.org/). Thanks. [EDIT] I found this (http://serverfault.com/questions/49305/drbd-experimentation-and-virtualization) is a similar question, but the answer does not seem to be firmative enough for me to follow.

    Read the article

  • Why does HDTune report better performing drives 2 months after installing them?

    - by Rolnik
    OK, so this is really weird. I ran HDTune on a newly set-up home-built computer and got the following readings from my drives in mid-November. SSD 154 MB/s RAID1 87 RAID0 198 (software installs) RAID0 98 Swap drive Today, in January, I run HDTune (same version) and get these results, in MB/s: SSD 186 RAID1 98 RAID0 241 RAID0 98 (Swap drive) Here are more details that HDTune reports on the SSD drive: HD Tune: OCZ-VERTEX Benchmark Blockquote Transfer Rate Minimum : 135.4 MB/sec Transfer Rate Maximum : 219.4 MB/sec Transfer Rate Average : 185.7 MB/sec Access Time : 0.1 ms Burst Rate : 187.3 MB/sec CPU Usage : -1.0% To get to my question: Why are my hard drives improving in performance? Most of my logical drives are in some form of RAID, except for the SSD. Will this performance ever deteriorate? Note, none of my drives are a hybrid drive that uses some form of SSD to enhance the write/reads on actual platters.

    Read the article

  • Proper way to partition filesystem with Xen

    - by luckytaxi
    I'm coming from a vmware environment, wanting to play with Xen. I have a server with 2 x 500G SATA drives (no hardware RAID available, have to use software-based RAID1). My partitions are all RAID1 except for swap. I left a little over 400G for my VMs and I would like to use LVM for the disk images. For domU's swap, should I allocate that from the 400G or should that be coming from dom0's partition? I asked because I've seen numerous config options that shows either or.

    Read the article

  • Server OS: put it on a separate drive? Yes, no, or depends on the situation?

    - by captainentropy
    Hi, I would like opinions, or facts, both preferably, on whether it's ok to install a server's OS on the RAID array or not. I would predict installation on separate drives is the best but I'm interested in the performance. The server in question will have 8 cores (2.4GHz ea.), 24GB RAM, and ~16TB of usable space of server-class drives in RAID10. There is also a subsytem of an ~equivalent size for backup. I will be running CPU/memory intesive applications on this server in addition to it being file storage for my work (research lab). IF I install the OS (haven't decided which one, probably Ubuntu or Fedora or some other good linux distro) on separate drives will there be any performance problems if they aren't configured in RAID10? IF it is better to have the OS on separate drives should I go for 150GB velociraptors in RAID1 or smallish SSD drives in RAID1? Money is unfortunately a factor as I think I'm close to maxing my budget as it is. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • When using RAID10 + BBWC why is it better to separate PostgreSQL data files from OS and transaction logs than to keep them all on the same array?

    - by Vlad
    I've seen the advice everywhere (including here and here): keep your OS partition, DB data files and DB transaction logs on separate discs/arrays. The general recommendation is to use RAID1 for OS, RAID10 for data (or RAID5 if load is very read-biased) and RAID1 for transaction logs. However, considering that you will need at least 6 or 8 drives to build this setup, wouldn't a RAID10 over 6-8 drives with BBWC perform better? What if the drives are SSDs? I'm talking here about internal server drives, not SAN.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >