Search Results

Search found 21196 results on 848 pages for 'software raid'.

Page 7/848 | < Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >

  • new hard drive on Dell Adaptec 2610SA 6 port SATA RAID PCI card

    - by Ragnarok85
    I have a Dell Adaptec 2610SA 6 port SATA RAID PCI card with 3 hard drives on it and everything works fine. I plugged another hard drive to it and the system (Ubuntu 12.04, 64 bit) seems not to recognize it. Strange thing is that, as happened in the past, if I re-install the system, it recognizes the new hardware plugged to RAID card. Of course I don't want to re-install ubuntu each time I plug a new hard drive on my RAID card. Any idea? Thank you in advance

    Read the article

  • Tracking downloads of your software + software CDN?

    - by jason l baptiste
    I'm primarily a web app developer/entrepreneur, so there's a lot I don't know about the desktop software distribution process. I've been thinking about making a Mac OS X app for fun, that I would distribute for free or a really small donation, but started thinking about distribution+download analytics: a) How do you host your software? Just on your web server/amazon s3 as the CDN? b) How do you track download analytics? On the flip side, I've thought about developing a simple service that does just this: Offers CDN hosting for software downloads, analytics by version, lets users share the app upon download, and makes the whole process a lot easier for ISVs. Curious to get feedback. Thanks! -jlb

    Read the article

  • Nvidia RAID 1 Problem. Degraded drives...

    - by Vedat Kursun
    I had a RAID 1 on my system which has a Gigabyte GA 8N SLI motherboard with a Nvidia chipset.(Nvidia Raid IDE ROM BIOS 4.84) When the system was working probably there used to be an icon on the system try which showed my two RAID disks. Bu after my friend accidentally clicked on the "Remove drive safely" icon while trying to disconnect her USB, I noticed that the RAID system wasn't working. After a reboot there was suddenly a failure message during boot screen. When I enter the Nvidia RAID setup utility (F10) I can see that both drives are degraded and that won't change even if I get into them and press R for Rebuild. Other options are only Delete and Exit. When I boot to Windows (XP Pro 32 Bit) I can see both my disks with the same data on each of them but my RAID 1 is broken. It's a relief to see that at least my RAID 1 was active but it's annoying not being able to rebuild it. Is there a way where I can rebuild my RAID 1 without having to delete the array and build it again? Cause I don't want to backup 400 Gigs of data and then recopy it to my drives... (Disks 2 x Seagate ST3500418 AS SATA Drives)

    Read the article

  • Nvidia RAID 1 Problem. Degraded drives...

    - by Vedat Kursun
    I had a RAID 1 on my system which has a Gigabyte GA 8N SLI motherboard with a Nvidia chipset.(Nvidia Raid IDE ROM BIOS 4.84) When the system was working probably there used to be an icon on the system try which showed my two RAID disks. Bu after my friend accidentally clicked on the "Remove drive safely" icon while trying to disconnect her USB, I noticed that the RAID system wasn't working. After a reboot there was suddenly a failure message during boot screen. When I enter the Nvidia RAID setup utility (F10) I can see that both drives are degraded and that won't change even if I get into them and press R for Rebuild. Other options are only Delete and Exit. When I boot to Windows (XP Pro 32 Bit) I can see both my disks with the same data on each of them but my RAID 1 is broken. It's a relief to see that at least my RAID 1 was active but it's annoying not being able to rebuild it. Is there a way where I can rebuild my RAID 1 without having to delete the array and build it again? Cause I don't want to backup 400 Gigs of data and then recopy it to my drives... (Disks 2 x Seagate ST3500418 AS SATA Drives)

    Read the article

  • High CPU load for 1:30 minutes when mounting ext4-raid partition

    - by sirion
    I have a raid 5 (software) with 5x2TB drives. I encrypted the raid with cryptsetup and put an ext4-partition on top. In the beginning opening and mounting the raid took less than 10 seconds, now (for a few weeks) mounting alone takes 1:30 minutes and the cpu stays around 93% the whole time: The output of "time sudo mount /dev/mapper/8000 /media/8000" is: real 1m31.952s user 0m0.008s sys 1m25.229s At the same time only one line is added to /var/log/syslog: kernel: [ 2240.921381] EXT4-fs (dm-1): mounted filesystem with ordered data mode. Opts: (null) My Ubuntu-version is "12.04.1 LTS" and no updates are pending. I checked the partition with fsck, but it says that all is ok. The "cryptsetup luksOpen" command only takes a few seconds. I also tried changing the raid-bitmap (as it was suggested in some forum) but it did not change the behaviour. sudo mdadm --grow /dev/md0 -b internal and sudo mdadm --grow /dev/md0 -b none I had the idea that it might be the hardware being slow, but a read test with "sudo hdparm -t /dev/md0" spit out values between 62 and 159 MB/sec: Timing buffered disk reads: 382 MB in 3.00 seconds = 127.14 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 482 MB in 3.02 seconds = 159.62 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 190 MB in 3.03 seconds = 62.65 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 474 MB in 3.02 seconds = 157.12 MB/sec Although I think it is strange that the read rate jumps by more than 100% - could that mean something? The speed test when reading from the mapped (decrypted) device shows similar behavior, although it is of course much slower. "sudo hdparm -t /dev/mapper/8000": Timing buffered disk reads: 56 MB in 3.02 seconds = 18.54 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 122 MB in 3.09 seconds = 39.43 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 134 MB in 3.02 seconds = 44.35 MB/sec The output of a verbose mount "mount -vvv /dev/mapper/8000 /media/8000" does not help much: mount: fstab path: "/etc/fstab" mount: mtab path: "/etc/mtab" mount: lock path: "/etc/mtab~" mount: temp path: "/etc/mtab.tmp" mount: UID: 0 mount: eUID: 0 mount: spec: "/dev/mapper/8000" mount: node: "/media/8000" mount: types: "(null)" mount: opts: "(null)" mount: you didn't specify a filesystem type for /dev/mapper/8000 I will try type ext4 mount: mount(2) syscall: source: "/dev/mapper/8000", target: "/media/8000", filesystemtype: "ext4", mountflags: -1058209792, data: (null) Any idea where I could find additional information on why mounting takes so long, or what additional tests I could run?

    Read the article

  • How do I get Windows 7 To Recognize a newly installed RAID 5 volume?

    - by GregH
    I had a previously running Windows 7 (64 bit) system. I added 3 new 1TB Seagate drives that I set up as a RAID 5 volume. I have a Gigabyte GA-P55M-UD2 motherboard. I installed the drives, set up the BIOS and configured the three drives as a RAID volume through the RAID setup utility that was accessed via Ctrl-I while the system was booting. I rebooted the system and could see the drives during the boot sequence. However, when Windows 7 was starting I got an error (quick blue screen) and then Windows tried to repair itself with no success. Do I need to install RAID drivers in Windows? How do I do it if Windows won't boot? Thanks in advance.

    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

  • Why has ESXi 5.0 not used the software RAID configuration on my test server?

    - by kafka
    I've got a test server which was running WS 2008 Enterprise on the bare metal. It was correctly using the software RAID 1 configuration (2x250 GB disks which appeared as one disk), setup on the Dell Poweredge T110 (which meets compatibility requirements) without requiring any extra setup from me. (As an aside I'm fairly sure it's software RAID, as we didn't spec a hardware RAID controller, if that's of any importance in this situation). I am now testing installing ESXi 5.0 on this server to run some VMs. I've successfully installed ESXi, and imported a VM fine, but it's showing 2 x 250 GB disks available as datastores. However they should be appearing as one volume. When I boot the server, there is a RAID configuration screen you can enter, and I'm guessing this is what I'll have to do at some stage, but now need to be very careful because there is one disk which contains data that I want to be mirrored on the other disk. What is the best thing to do in this situation?

    Read the article

  • What is the fastest RAID in practise?

    - by Luke
    I'm going to be rebuilding my server, and I want much faster access to my data. I've used RAID 1 and 0 in the past, and decided upon RAID 10 (dedicated RAID card). Then someone told me to use RAID 5+0, then someone else told me to use RAID 6+0. Assuming the Hardware RAID Card supports each level, what is currently the FASTEST RAID available, given x number of hard drives? Reliability is now another factor, and I am willing to spend money on new drives if a drive (or multiple) fail. I simply want to know what the fastest RAID level is, along with some reliability for recovering from a failure

    Read the article

  • What characteristic of a software determines its operational scope?

    - by Dark Star1
    How can I classify whether a software is a medium with the ability to grow into an enterprise level software or whether it is already there? And how should I use the information to choose the appropriate language/tool to create the software? At first I was asking whether Java or PHP is the best tool to design enterprise level software, however I've suddenly realized that I am unable to put the software I'm tasked with redesigning into the proper scope so I'm lost. Edit: I guess I'm looking for tell tale signs in software that may tip the favour towards enterprise level type software in the sense of functional and operational characteristics; functional: what it does (multi-functional), Architectural characteristics such as highly modular. operational: multi-sourced and multi-homed, databases, e.t.c. To be honest the reason I ask is because I'm skeptical about the use of PhP to design a piece of employee and partial accounting software. I'm more tipping towards the use of JSP and an hmvc framework such as JSF, wickets, e.t.c. where as the other guy wants to go the PhP way although I'm not experienced with PhP, as far as I know it's not an OO oriented language hence my skepticsm towards it.

    Read the article

  • Software Architecture and Software Architecture Evaluation

    How many of us have worked at places where the concept of software architecture was ridiculed for wasting time and money? Even more ridiculous to them was the concept of evaluating software architecture. I think the next time that I am in this situation again, and I hope that I never am I will have to push for this methodology in the software development life cycle. I have spent way too many hours/days/months/years working poorly architected systems or systems that were just built ADHOC. This in software development must stop. I can understand why systems get like this due to overzealous sales staff, demanding management that wants everything yesterday, and project managers asking if things are done yet before the project has even started. But seriously, some time must be spent designing the applications that we write along with evaluating the architecture so that it will integrate will within the existing systems of an origination. If placed in this situation again, I will strive to gain buying from key players within the business, for example: Senior Software Engineers\Developers, Software Architects, Project Managers, Software Quality Assurance, Technical Services, Operations, and Finance in order for this idea to succeed with upper management. In order to convince these key players I will have to show them the benefits of architecture and even more benefits of evaluating software architecture on a system wide level. Benefits of Software Architecture Evaluation Places Stakeholders in the Same Room to Communicate Ensures Delivery of Detailed Quality Goals Prioritizes Conflicting Goals Requires Clear Explication Improves the Quality of Documentation Discovers Opportunities for Cross-Project Reuse Improves Architecture Practices Once I had key player buy in then and only then would I approach upper management about my plan regarding implementing the concept of software architecture and using evaluation to ensure that the software being designed is the proper architecture for the project. In addition to the benefits listed above I would also show upper management how much time is being wasted by not doing these evaluations. For example, if project X cost us Y amount, then why do we have several implementations in various forms of X and how much money and time could we have saved if we just reused the existing code base to give each system the same functionality that was already created? After this, I would mention what would happen if we had 50 instances of this situation? Then I would show them how the software architecture evaluation process would have prevented this and that the optimization could have leveraged its existing code base to increase the speed and quality of its development. References:Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute (2011). Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method from http://www.sei.cmu.edu/architecture/tools/evaluate/atam.cfm

    Read the article

  • format/build raid 5 with one 4k drive, three 512b

    - by skidawgz
    I have 4 WD 1TB drives which I want to 4x1TB Raid5. I am not sure what course of action to take next. How do I configure my 4th drive (sde) to align with the rest? Will this affect performance? I rcv this msg (which brings me here to ask these question): The device presents a logical sector size that is smaller than the physical sector size. Aligning to a physical sector (or optimal I/O) size boundary is recommended, or performance may be impacted. fdisk -l shows: Disk /dev/sdb: 1000.2 GB, 1000204886016 bytes 81 heads, 63 sectors/track, 382818 cylinders, total 1953525168 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0xf324ba09 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdb1 2048 1953525167 976761560 fd Linux raid autodetect Disk /dev/sdc: 1000.2 GB, 1000204886016 bytes 81 heads, 63 sectors/track, 382818 cylinders, total 1953525168 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x38bcc1f0 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdc1 2048 1953525167 976761560 fd Linux raid autodetect Disk /dev/sdd: 1000.2 GB, 1000204886016 bytes 81 heads, 63 sectors/track, 382818 cylinders, total 1953525168 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x570f77e7 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdd1 2048 1953525167 976761560 fd Linux raid autodetect Disk /dev/sde: 1000.2 GB, 1000204886016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 121601 cylinders, total 1953525168 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 4096 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 4096 bytes Disk identifier: 0xeb665e7b Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System

    Read the article

  • How to access a fake raid?

    - by maaartinus
    I have a fake raid, which I wanted to access using mdadm /dev/md0 -A -c 128 -l stripe --verbose /dev/sda /dev/sdc which should be right, as far as I understand the man page. But I get the message mdadm: option -l not valid in assemble mode leaving the offending option out leads to mdadm: failed to create /dev/md0 and (despite verbose) no more information. I'm assuming that -A requires some mdadm-specific header which is obviously missing. I probably need to use "build" instead of assemble, but from the description I'm really unsure whether this is a non-destructive operation. Is it? What should I exactly do? UPDATE I see I haven't made clear, that the array already exists as a fake-raid (I can't give the details about my mainboard now). It looks like doing nothing except for interleaving blocks, so I hoped it could be easily done using mdadm, too. Maybe I'm completely wrong, but all the info I've found was concerned with booting from fake-raid, what I don't really need. I'd be happy with a read access for now.

    Read the article

  • Installing 10.04 server on HP xw9400 Workstation with RAID 5

    - by Dave Long
    I have a workstation that was given to me that is a friggen powerhouse, so I figured I would set it up as my development and demo server. This is my first experience installing Ubuntu onto a RAID array and so far it has not been a fun one. I have been following the Advanced Installation guide for installing Ubuntu 10.04 server, and it says that there will be an option on the Partition Disks screen to manually create the partitions, but the only options I have are: Configure iSCSI volumes Undo changes to partitions Finish partitioning and write changes to disk Just before I got to that screen I got a message that said: One or more drives containing Serial ATA RAID configurations have been found. Do you wish to activate these RAID devices? It doesn't matter whether I answer yes or no to that, I still get the same Partition Disks screen. When I try to select Finish partitioning and write changes to disk I just get the No root file system error. Has anyone else experienced this, and how do I get past it? Can I not run Ubuntu on this machine?

    Read the article

  • recovering raid 0 hard disk

    - by Hiawatha
    I bumped to a huge (for me) problem. I was running dual boot system (win 7 / linux) and at some point I decided to test fedora ( I am new in Linux ). My hard disk conf: 3 hard disks each 1 TB, 2 set to raid 0 with windows running on it and 1 for linux. After installing it from live usb I found out that windows 7 is not in grub anymore and while booting shows raid error. I installed back Ubuntu and ran Disk Utility and checked now I have one disks (raid 0) failed (READ) error. First has 5 bad sectors and second has 1 bad sector. And now I dont know what to do and how to repair. further I dont know which data i could provide to get help. I tried ntfsfix and got this output: Mounting volume... NTFS signature is missing. FAILED Attempting to correct errors... NTFS signature is missing. FAILED Failed to startup volume: Invalid argument NTFS signature is missing. Trying the alternate boot sector Unrecoverable error Volume is corrupt. You should run chkdsk. #sudo ntfs-3g -o force,rw /dev/sdb /media/windows NTFS signature is missing. Failed to mount '/dev/sdb': Invalid argument The device '/dev/sdb' doesn't seem to have a valid NTFS. Maybe the wrong device is used? Or the whole disk instead of a partition (e.g. /dev/sda, not /dev/sda1)? Or the other way around?

    Read the article

  • Failed to install GRUB on a separate '/boot' partition on a fake RAID 0 (12.04LTS)

    - by gerben
    I'm having some problems getting GRUB configured for Ubuntu 12.04LTS on a fake RAID 0. I can either get the GRUB rescue prompt at startup, or just a GRUB prompt but I cannot boot to Ubuntu manually. How can I configure the GRUB to actually use the Ubuntu install? The steps taken: Installing Ubuntu on fake raid The Ubuntu installer cannot install Ubuntu on the drive. After defining the partitions to use it fails with "Error: ???", pressing OK terminates the installer. Therefore, I used GParted to configure the partitions: /dev/mapper/sil_agadaccfacbg : (the RAID configuration, created partition): /dev/mapper/sil_agadaccfacbg1:ext2, 200MiB, (with 'boot' flag) /dev/mapper/sil_agadaccfacbg3:ext2, 67.75GiB, (which will contain Ubuntu) /dev/mapper/sil_agadaccfacbg2:extended, 1.00GiB, (for swap) Contains: /dev/mapper/sil_agadaccfacbg5: unknown Because of the fake-RAID, I already mounted the destination partitions before running the Ubuntu installer: > mkdir /mnt/boot > sudo mount /dev/mapper/sil_agadaccfacbg1 /mnt/boot > mkdir /mnt/ubuntu > sudo mount /dev/mapper/sil_agadaccfacbg3 /mnt/ubuntu In the installer I chose the following partition usage: /dev/mapper/sil_agadaccfacbg1 ext2, mount at /boot (209MB) /dev/mapper/sil_agadaccfacbg3 ext2, mount at / (72751MB) /dev/mapper/sil_agadaccfacbg5 swap Device for boot loader installation: /dev/mapper/sil_agadaccfacbg, linux device-mapper (striped) (74.0GB) This will install Ubuntu, but will fail to install GRUB (it seems to use /dev/sda no matter which one I choose) Installing GRUB with dpkg-reconfigure I followed this guide, but adapted it for two partitions: sudo mount /dev/mapper/sil_agadaccfacbg3 /mnt/ubuntu sudo mount --bind /dev /mnt/ubuntu/dev sudo mount --bind /proc /mnt/ubuntu/proc sudo mount --bind /sys /mnt/ubuntu/sys sudo mount /dev/mapper/sil_agadaccfacbg1 /mnt/boot sudo mount --bind /boot /mnt/boot sudo chroot /mnt/ubuntu dpkg-reconfigure grub-pc However, it does not ask where to install GRUB (I should choose /dev/mapper/sil_agadaccfacbg somewhere..) After reboot I get the GRUB rescue prompt with message no such device Installing GRUB with grub-install After the same mount commands as above, I continued with: > sudo grub-install --root-directory=/mnt/boot /dev/mapper/sil_agadaccfacbg This gives the following message: /usr/sbin/grub-probe: error: cannot find a device for /mnt/boot/boot/grub (is /dev mounted?) It does succeed when mounting just the boot partition : sudo mount /dev/mapper/sil_agadaccfacbg1 /mnt sudo grub-install --root-directory=/mnt/ /dev/mapper/sil_agadaccfacbg This finishes with: Installation finished. No error reported. After reboot I get the GRUB console, with welcome text. Attempting to manually start Ubuntu: ls (hd0) (hd0,msdos3) : (Ubuntu install partition) (hd0,msdos1) : (Ubuntu boot partition) (hd1) (hd1,msdos1) : (Ubuntu live USB) ls (hd0,msdos3)/ contains: - vmlinuz - lib/ - tmp/ - initrd.img - mnt/ - var/ - proc/ - boot/ - root/ - etc/ - run/ - media/ - sbin/ - bin/ - selinux/ - dev/ - srv/ - home/ - sys/ ls (hd0,msdos1)/ contains: -grub/ -boot/ -initrd.img-3.8.0-29-generic -vmlinuz-3.8.0.29-generic -config-3.8 linux (hd0,msdos3)/vmlinuz This returns "error: out of disk" Installing GRUB on Ubuntu partition with grub-install > sudo mount /dev/mapper/sil_agadaccfacbg3 /mnt > sudo grub-install --root-directory=/mnt/ /dev/mapper/sil_agadaccfacbg This finishes with message: > Installation finished. No error reported. After reboot get the message "error: out of disk" and the GRUB rescue prompt. Configuring GRUB with grub-mkconfig Attempting to run grub-mkconfig with different destinations results in the same message: /usr/sbin/grub-probe: error: cannot find a device for / (is /dev mounted?). Remarks: Initially I didn't use a separate /boot partition, but the GRUB install then also failed. Because some mention that a small partition at the beginning of the drive is necessary on old machines, I retried with a /boot partition This is a single boot (no other OS's installed/used)

    Read the article

  • mkfs Operation Takes Very Long on Linux Software Raid 5

    - by Elmar Weber
    I've set-up a Linux software raid level 5 consisting of 4 * 2 TB disks. The disk array was created with a 64k stripe size and no other configuration parameters. After the initial rebuild I tried to create a filesystem and this step takes very long (about half an hour or more). I tried to create an xfs and ext3 filesystem, both took a long time, with mkfs.ext3 I observed the following behaviour, which might be helpful: writing inode tables runs fast until it reaches 1053 (~ 1 second), then it writes about 50, waits for two seconds, then the next 50 are written (according to the console display) when I try to cancel the operation with Control+C it hangs for half a minute before it is really canceled The performance of the disks individually is very good, I've run bonnie++ on each one separately with write / read values of around 95 / 110MB/s. Even when I run bonnie++ on every drive in parallel the values are only reduced by about 10 MB. So I'm excluding hardware / I/O scheduling in general as a problem source. I tried different configuration parameters for stripe_cache_size and readahead size without success, but I don't think they are that relevant for the file system creation operation. The server details: Linux server 2.6.35-27-generic #48-Ubuntu SMP x86_64 GNU/Linux mdadm - v2.6.7.1 Does anyone has a suggestion on how to further debug this?

    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

  • Will Ubuntu break my RAID 0 array?

    - by Chad
    I am upgrading an older machine today with new Motherboard, RAM, and CPU. Then I am going to do a fresh install of Ubuntu 64bit. Currently the old machine has an 80gb system drive, and a 4TB RAID 0 array. The old Motherboard has no SATA ports, so I used a SATA card. Ubuntu set up the old RAID array, will it still recognize the array on a newer machine? Are there any steps I should take to ensure the array isn't damaged? It's non-crucial data, but I would rather not start over if it can be avoided. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Well supported Hardware Raid Controller

    - by ftiaronsem
    Hello alltogether I am currently planning to buy a hardware-raid controller. This became necessary since I am running Linux and Windows in parallel and now need the redundancy for both OS (Im am going to use RAID1 / Mirroring). Therefore I am searching for a hardware raid controller which is well supported by linux / ubuntu (reporting smart values, stats for the harddrives, etc...). This controller should have four sata ports and if possible it should fit in a PCIE-1x Slot. I would greatly appreciate, if you could suggest some devices. Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu 13.10 software raid

    - by Piotr Belniak
    I had already Ubuntu OS installed on my desktop PC, where the software RAID 5 is configured ( 3 partitions /, swap and home ). This system was upgraded from the 11.04 till 13.04, it was quite messy, so I decided to install fresh system on existing partitions. 1st of all i found that there is no alternate version of the installer ( which i used to create previous installation ), so i stared with the regular image. I installed mdadm tools, assemble the partitions - fdisk are showing them properly - so i'm starting the installation - and everything i going fine until the GRUB instalation - this part fails - regardless of which partition i use as a target. From the other hand, neither OpenSUse and Ubuntu 12.04 alternate does not have any problems with installing the GRUB - on this configuration, unfortunatelly Ubuntu 12.04 - 12.10 upgrade is failing bacause of some Xorg issues ;(. Maybe someone has an experience with installation of ubuntu 13.10 GRUB on the RAID 5 partitions - and could give me a hint, how to solve my problem. Thanks in advance, Piotr

    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

  • Software Center doesn't open (elementary luna - ubuntu 12.04)

    - by zbiba
    When i try to open software center on elementary luna i get the bellow error.... ERROR:root:DebFileApplication import Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/share/software-center/softwarecenter/db/init.py", line 4, in from debfile import DebFileApplication, DebFileOpenError File "/usr/share/software-center/softwarecenter/db/debfile.py", line 25, in from softwarecenter.db.application import Application, AppDetails File "/usr/share/software-center/softwarecenter/db/application.py", line 27, in import softwarecenter.distro File "/usr/share/software-center/softwarecenter/distro/init.py", line 198, in distro_instance = _get_distro() File "/usr/share/software-center/softwarecenter/distro/init.py", line 175, in _get_distro distro_class = getattr(module, distro_id) AttributeError: 'module' object has no attribute 'debian' Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/sbin/update-software-center", line 38, in from softwarecenter.db.update import rebuild_database File "/usr/share/software-center/softwarecenter/db/update.py", line 33, in from softwarecenter.distro import get_distro File "/usr/share/software-center/softwarecenter/distro/init.py", line 198, in distro_instance = _get_distro() File "/usr/share/software-center/softwarecenter/distro/init.py", line 175, in _get_distro distro_class = getattr(module, distro_id) AttributeError: 'module' object has no attribute 'debian'

    Read the article

  • Failed install 12.04 on Intel Hardware Raid with Large Partition (> 2TB)

    - by Michael Wiles
    I have Intel Hardware Raid on the motherboard. I have 10 2 TB HDD that I've configured as RAID 1+0 to be one big 8 TB HDD. Now I'm trying to install ubuntu 12.04 on it. After installing with default desktop installation disk I get a blank screen with a cursor flashing. If I try the alternate guided partitioning option I get error: out of disk. and the grub prompt. If I boot with the rescue disk or such like I can drop into a shell and view the disk. Everything also installs without an issue. Don't know what to do...

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >