Search Results

Search found 227 results on 10 pages for 'raid5'.

Page 3/10 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10  | Next Page >

• missing files after reassemble of RAID-5

  - by Kris_R

  I had to open my file-server's housing on Sunday to replace a faulty fan. What I didn't see was that one of the sata-cables was not properly connected. The 1st thing I did after a reboot was a check of the RAID status and it showed immediately that one drive is missing. Till this moment the device was not used (however it was mounted, so I'm not 100% sure that system did nothing). I stopped md0 and re-plugged the cable: mdadm --stop /dev/md0 poweroff After another reboot I checked the removed drive: mdadm --examine /dev/sdd1 ... Checksum : 3276bc1d - correct Events : 315782 Layout : left-symmetric Chunk Size : 32K Number Major Minor RaidDevice State this 0 8 49 0 active sync /dev/sdd1 0 0 8 49 0 active sync /dev/sdd1 1 1 8 65 1 active sync /dev/sde1 2 2 8 33 2 active sync /dev/sdc1 3 3 8 17 3 active sync /dev/sdb1 I was a bit surprised that it was shown as active (even if earlier mdadm said, that this device was removed from array) and its checksum was OK. I recreated RAID with: mdadm --assemble /dev/md0 --scan The command mdadm --detail /dev/md0 showed that all drives were running and system was in "clean" state. I mounted the device md0 and then came hic-cup. I wanted to work on one of the last files that I had been using before all the situation and it was not there. In another place I missed actually all files from the directory where I was working. As far as I can see most of the files that are older than a few days are intact but some newer ones are missing. Now the big question: what would be your advice? Is there a way to get these data? I thought about removing the drive that was earlier labeled by mdadm and rebuild array with another empty HDD. I've found that after re-assemble the "broken" drive has another label (changed from sdd to sdb). Can this have influence on rebuilt process? If yes, how to reassemble the array properly? I'm sure the SATA-cables are connected still in the same order to the controller. p.s. Please no advises like "restore from backup". I'm doing back-ups on Sunday's night and this happened in the late afternoon, so backup is not really options for me. p.s.s. I asked this question on Unix&Linux but no answer came up during last two days. I'm getting quite anxious. Sorry for duplicating if any of you reading the other forum.

  Read the article

• MediaShield RAID 5 is showing up as 760GB when the actual size is 2.7TB

  - by Ilya Volodin

  I just finished setting up Windows 2003 Server on my new server. And I started setting up a RAID 5 for it. I have 4x1TB Hard Drives. From MediaSheild RAID Utility (at boot time) the RAID size is displayed as 2.7TB. Linux also shows it as 2.7TB. However, in Windows, everything (including Windows Disk Management as well as Windows based MediaShield utility) is reporting only 760Gb. I already tried converting partitioning table to GUID from MBR, because I read somewhere that Windows can only handle up to 2TB MBR tables, that didn't help much. Tried searching for partitioning utilities that I could use, but couldn't find anything free. Formatted the disk as NTFS partition from within Linux, it stop showing in Windows all together, even MediaShield windows utility isn't showing at anymore. Windows is installed on a separate 500Gb hard drive, that's setup not to support RAID. Any ideas?

  Read the article

• Do I need to rebuild the array after putting in a new hot spare?

  - by Shade34321

  So my experience with RAID is minimal. So I figured I'd come and ask here. We have a 16 drive RAID system that have 15 drives in RAID 5 with a hot spare left over. Recently one of the drives in the RAID was giving errors so I cloned it over to the hot spare and put a new drive in it's spot. I made the new drive the hot spare as I was told. I was told to rebuild the array after putting in the new drive as a hot spare so I tried and wasn't able to. So my question is do I need to rebuild it and if so why did it tell me I couldn't. Thanks! UPDATE: So I've come back up to work and looked at the RAID and it pulled in the hot spare into the raid and kicked out another drive.

  Read the article

• How many disks is too many in this RAID 5 configuration??

  - by Tom

  HP 2012i SAN, 7 disks in RAID 5 with 1 hot spare, took several days to expand the volume from 5 to 7 300GB SAS drives. Looking for suggestions about when and how I would determine that having 2 volumes in the SAN, each one with RAID 5, would be better?? I can add 3 more drives to the controller someday, the SAN is used for ESX/vSphere VMs. Thank you...

  Read the article

• Raid-5 Performance per spindle scaling

  - by Bill N.

  So I am stuck in a corner, I have a storage project that is limited to 24 spindles, and requires heavy random Write (the corresponding read side is purely sequential). Needs every bit of space on my Drives, ~13TB total in a n-1 raid-5, and has to go fast, over 2GB/s sort of fast. The obvious answer is to use a Stripe/Concat (Raid-0/1), or better yet a raid-10 in place of the raid-5, but that is disallowed for reasons beyond my control. So I am here asking for help in getting a sub optimal configuration to be as good as it can be. The array built on direct attached SAS-2 10K rpm drives, backed by a ARECA 18xx series controller with 4GB of cache. 64k array stripes and an 4K stripe aligned XFS File system, with 24 Allocation groups (to avoid some of the penalty for being raid 5). The heart of my question is this: In the same setup with 6 spindles/AG's I see a near disk limited performance on the write, ~100MB/s per spindle, at 12 spindles I see that drop to ~80MB/s and at 24 ~60MB/s. I would expect that with a distributed parity and matched AG's, the performance should scale with the # of spindles, or be worse at small spindle counts, but this array is doing the opposite. What am I missing ? Should Raid-5 performance scale with # of spindles ? Many thanks for your answers and any ideas, input, or guidance. --Bill Edit: Improving RAID performance The other relevant thread I was able to find, discusses some of the same issues in the answers, though it still leaves me with out an answer on the performance scaling.

  Read the article

• Slow parity initialization of RAID-5 array on HP Smart Array 411 controller

  - by Rob Nicholson

  On 29th October 2011, I built a RAID-5 array using 4 x 146.8GB Seagate SAS ST3146855SS drives running at 15k connected to a PowerEdge R515 with HP Smart Array P411 controller running Windows 2008 (so nothing particularly unusual). I know that parity initialisation of a RAID-5 array can take some time but it's still running after 2.5 weeks which seems a little unusual. I'd previously built another array on the same controller using 4 x 2TB SATA-2 drives and that did take a while to complete but a) I'm sure it was less than 2.5 weeks, b) that array was ~12 times bigger and c) during initialization, the percentrage slowly increased each day. At the moment, the status display for this new 2nd array simply says "Parity Initialization Status: In Progress" and it's said that since the start. It's this lack of change on the status that worries me the most - feels like it's not actually doing anything. Do you think something has gone wrong or am I being unpatient and for some reason, the status not increasing is normal? I kind of expected a much smaller array on faster drives (15k SAS versus 7.5k SATA-2) to build in a few days. This is our primary SAN running StarWind so my "have a play" options are very limited. This 2nd array is currently in use for one small virtual disk so I could shut the target machine down, move the virtual disk to another drive and try rebuilding.

  Read the article

• Drive configuration for 5 large databases

  - by Mr. Flibble

  I've got 5 databases, each 300GB, currently on a RAID 5 array consisting of 5 drives. All the databases are used heavily, at the same time, so drive speed is an issue. Would I see better performance if I got rid of the RAID 5 configuration and just put each database on a separate drive? The redundancy provided by RAID 5 is not necessary due to mirroring elsewhere. Will the server then be able to perform reads / writes to different databases drives in parallel? More so at least than when it's in RAID? This is all on Windows 2003 / SQL 2008.

  Read the article

• How to recover from a drive failure in a RAID 5 configuration?

  - by Philip Fourie

  This morning a drive failed on our database server. The drive array (3 disks) is setup in a RAID 5 configuration. While we wait for a drive replacement we are preparing for a recovery strategy. Users are continuing to work on the system, albeit very slowly (don't know why??). How does one install the new drive - will the data for this drive automatically be rebuilt from the parity or is there another process we should follow? Edit: This is a hardware RAID controller. (Thanks for the answers so far, appreciated)

  Read the article

• How likely can my data be recovered after Windows CHKDSK performed on a degraded RAID 5 array?

  - by chrisling106

  Hello there, We have a RAID 5 setup with 3 SATA disks, #2 went down as reported on the pre-POST screen. Unfortunately, for some reason out of my control, the system was rebooted with a degraded RAID :-O Windows XP (64-bit) loaded, CHKDSK ran automatically and done its recovery! From that point onwards, the following error prompts every time even in Safe Mode: lsass.exe - The endpoint format is invalid I took those 3 disks to the data recovery expert and need to wait at least 2-4 days for results. There are 2 VMs on multiple files stored in this RAID 5 array, and there's no backup! Sorry, I just inherited the system from an ex-staff who has left the company 2 months before I joined. How likely the data can be recovered?

  Read the article

• What parameters to mdadm, to re-create md device with payload starting at 0x22000 position on backing storage?

  - by Adam Ryczkowski

  I try to recover from mdadm raid disaster, which happened when moving from ubuntu server 10.04 to 12.04. I know the correct order of devices from dmesg log, but given this information, I still cannot access the data. The superblocks look messy; the mdadm --examine for each disk is on this question on askubuntu By inspecting the raw contents of backing storage, I found the beginning of my data (the LUKS container in my case) at position 0x22000 relative to the beginning of the first partition in the raid. Question: What is the combination of options issued to "mdadm --create" to re-create mdadm that starts with the given offset? Bitmap size? PS. The relevant information from syslog when the system was healthy are pasted here.

  Read the article

• Raid 5 and Power Supply damage?

  - by Tronic

  Hi. Because I build a RAID 5 atm, I wanted to ask, what would happen if the server with a raid 5 in it (like 4-5 hdds) would have a power supply damage? Can I just switch the power supply and my data is safe and backup again or will there be a raid damage as well? Thanks in advance. Regards.

  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

• Raid 5 with hot spare or RAID 10 with no hot spare?

  - by Boden

  Yes, this is on of those "do my job for me" questions, have some pity:) I'm at the limit for what I can do with the number of hard drives in a server without spending a substantial amount of money. I have four drives left to configure, and I can either set them up as a RAID 5 and dedicate a hot spare, or a RAID 10 with no hot spare. The size of each will be the same, and the RAID 5 will offer enough performance. I'm RAID 5 shy, but I also don't like the idea of running without a hot spare. I'm not so interested in degraded performance, but the amount of time the system is without adequate redundancy. The server and drives are under a 13x5 4 hour response contract (although I happen to know that the nearest service provider is at least 2-3 hours away by car in the winter). I should note that the server also has two RAID 1 arrays which would also be protected by the hot spare. Why don't they make drive cages with 9 bays! Heh.

  Read the article

• Windows Server 2008 Software Raid 5 - Data integrity issues

  - by Fopedush

  I've got a server running Windows Server 2008 R2, with a (windows native) software raid-5 array. The array consists of 7x 1TB Western Digital RE3 and RE4 drives. I have offline backups of this array. The problem is this: I noticed a few days ago after copying a large file to the disk that there was an integrity issue with that file - it was a ~12GB file that I had downloaded via uTorrent. After moving it to the raid array, I used uTorrent to relocate the download location, and performed a re-check so I could seed it from that location. The recheck found that only 6308/6310 chunks of the copied file were intact. My next step was to write a quick powershell script that would copy files to the array, while performing a SHA1 hash of the original and resultant files and comparing them. Smaller files (100-1000MB) copied over just fine. When I started copying larger data (~15GB), I found that the hash check failed about 2/3rds of the time. The corrupt files had very, very small inconsistencies - less than .01%. I further eliminated the possibility of networking or client issues by placing this large file on the C:\ of the server, and copying it repeatedly from there to the array, seeing similar results. Copying the data via explorer, powershell, or the standard windows command prompt yield the same results. None of the copies fail or report any problems. The raid array itself is listed as healthy in disk management. After a few experiments, I shut down the server and ran memtest overnight. No errors were detected. A basic run of chkdsk found no problems, but I did not use the /R flag, as I was unsure how that might affect a software raid-5 volume. I next ran Crystal Disk Info to check the smart data on the drives - but found that CDI only detected 5 out of 7 of the disks in the array. I have no idea why. Nevertheless, CDI shows the following "caution" flags on a single one of the drives: 05 199 199 140 000000000001 Reallocated Sectors Count C5 200 200 __0 000000000001 Current Pending Sector Count Which is a little bit alarming, but I don't really know what to do with the information. I hardly feel like one reallocated sector could be causing this. At this point, I'm looking for some guidance on what to do next. I need to determine the cause of this issue, but I'm hesitant to run chkdsk /R or any bootable disk health checkers because I'm afraid they might break the array. I've considered triggering a re-sync of the array, but I'm not actually sure how to do that without doing something silly like manually dropping a disk and then restoring it. Any advice that could help me ferret out the precise cause of this issue would be greatly appreciated.

  Read the article

• RAID 10 or RAID 5 for multiple VMs - what is the best choice?

  - by Lars Fastrup

  I have just ordered a new rig for my business. We do a lot of software development for Microsoft SharePoint and need the rig to run several virtual machines for development and test purposes. We will be using the free VMware ESXi for virtualization. For a start, we plan to build and start the following VMs - all with Windows Server 2008 R2 x64: Active Directory server MS SQL Server 2008 R2 Automated Build Server SharePoint 2010 Server for hosting our public Web site and our internal Intranet for a few people. The load on this server is going to be quite insignificant. 2xSharePoint 2007 development server 2xSharePoint 2010 development server Beyond that we will need to build several SharePoint farms for testing purposes. These VMs will only be started when needed. The specs of the new rig is: Dell R610 rack server 2xIntel XEON E5620 48GB RAM 6x146GB SAS drives Dell H700 RAID controller We believe the new server is going to make our VMs perform a lot better than our existing setup (2xIntel XEON, 16GB RAM, 2x500 GB SATA in RAID 1). But we are not sure about the RAID level for the new rig. Should we go for having the the 6x146GB SAS drives in a RAID 10 configuration or a RAID 5 configuration? RAID 10 seems to offer better write performance and lower risk of a RAID failure. But it comes at a cost of less drive space. Do we need RAID 10 or would RAID 5 also be a good choice for us?

  Read the article

• Dell PowerEdge R720 - Corrupted RAID

  - by BT643

  Apologies in advance for the lengthy question. We have a Dell PowerEdge R720 server with: 2 x 136GB SAS drives in RAID 1 for the OS (Ubuntu Server 12.04) 6 x 3TB SATA drives in RAID 5 for data A few days ago we were getting errors when trying to access files on the large RAID 5 partition. We rebooted the server and got a message about the raid controller has found a foriegn config. We've had this before, and just needed to use Dell's RAID configuration utility to import foreign config on the RAID. Last time this worked, but this time, it started doing a disk check then we got this: FSCK has returned the following: "/dev/sdb1 inode 364738 has a bad extended attribute block 7 /dev/sdb1 unexpected inconsistency run fsck manually (i.e without -a or -p options) MOUNTALL fsck /ourdatapartition [1019] terminated with status 4 MOUNTALL filesystem has errors /ourdatapartition errors where found while checking the disk drive for /ourdatapartition Press F to fix errors, I to Ignore or M for Manual Recovery" We pressed F to try and fix the errors, but it eventually errored with: Inode 275841084, i_blocks is 167080, should be 0. Fix? yes Inode 275841141 has an invalid extend node (blk 2206761006, lblk 0) Clear? yes Inode 275841141, i_blocks is 227872, should be 0. Fix? yes Inode 275842303 has an invalid extend node (blk 2206760975, lblk 0) Clear? yes .... Error storing directory block information (inode=275906766, block=0, num=2699516178): Memory allocation failed /dev/sdb1: ***** FILE SYSTEM WAS MODIFIED ***** e2fsck: aborted /dev/sdb1: ***** FILE SYSTEM WAS MODIFIED ***** mountall: fsck /ourdatapartition [1286] terminated with status 9 mountall: Unrecoverable fsck error: /ourdatapartition We noticed one of the drive lights was not lit at all, and thought this may have failed and be the problem. We replaced the drive with a spare, and tried "F" to repair it again, but we keep just getting the same error as above. In the RAID configuration utility, all drives show as "online" and "optimal". We do have this data on another replicated server, so we're not worried about "recovering" anything, we just want to get the system back online asap. The server has 64 or 32GB memory, can't remember off the top of my head, but either way, with a 14TB RAID, I think it may still not be enough. Thanks EDIT - I checked the memory usage while fsck was running as suggested and after 2 or 3 minutes, it looked like this, using up nearly all of our servers memory: When it failed after 5 minutes or so with the error in my post, the memory immediately freed up again:

  Read the article

• Completely replacing (upgrading) a RAID 5 array of disks on an ESXi server

  - by jshin47

  I have a development server that runs several VM on ESXi 5. It has an array of disks in the RAID 5 configuration where all of the disks are currently the same size. I would like to expand storage on this box greatly, but I am not sure what the smartest way to go about this would be. My current plan is to: Turn off all VM Copy VM folders from server to another location Verify that I can mount all the VM on the new location (ie that the copy went ok) Replace all the disks with new, bigger ones Reinstall ESXi5 Copy the VM back over This seems like it might take a while to accomplish and is not terribly slick, especially since I will have to reconfigure ESXi 5, but is there a smarter alternative?

  Read the article

• Upgrade no raid server to raid

  - by AZee

  I have just learned that our PDC has a single drive with 2 partitions. I also know that this drive has bad blocks as recorded in the event log. What I would like to do is to convert this to a RAID solution with a nice balance between economy and performance. I will admit that I have only configured servers with RAID from scratch, and have no experience upgrading an existing system into a RAID system. In fact, I'm not sure it is even possible. Since this is the PDC for 350+ workstations downtime is important. I'd like to hear from other System Administators how they would tackle this and their recommendations for all devices. At this time it seems to me that I can replace the existing drive and then restore from backup or install a controller, drives, configure the RAID an basically start from scratch. Thank you for taking your time. ~AZee

  Read the article

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

  - by Jon Cage

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

  Read the article

• Reusing Raid 5 Drive?

  - by User125

  We have two servers (ML530 G2 and DL380G2) w/ identical HP 10K RPM SCSI drives w/ a raid 5. One is decommissioned and the other will be decommissioned shortly. However, one of the drives on the production server had a drive failure. My hope was to take one of the drives from the decommissioned server and pop it into the production server. Both are running RAID 5. I broke the array on the decomm. server. To my knowledge, that should have wiped out all the volume and partition information. However, I do not know if it is safe to then take a drive from the decomm'ed server and replace the failed drive. Will the existing array see it as a replacement drive, wipe it and rebuild? Or will it fail because it was used in an array before. Are there any remnant data that resides on the drives after deleting a raid 5 array? These servers are 10-15 years old, so we're just trying to keep them alive until we decommission it. I'm not looking to pay a premium to find a vendor that still sells replacement drives for this system.

  Read the article

• How do I calculate the disk subsystem i/o capacity

  - by dbpinochle

  I am trying to figure out the number of 8K page i/o capacity for a disk subsystem. The drives are SATA 7200 RPM - 4 drives in a RAID-5 configuration. I am not sure about the SCSI controller but the server is about 5 years old.

  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

• How do i Change a Dammage Disk in a Raid 5

  - by Egakagoc2xI

  Hi, I have a 4 drives Raid 5 Server, which one of them is dammage, all drivers are hot plugged. My Question is, I Want to replace the dammage with a new one, Do I have to shutdown the server or just change the hard drives with the server on a it'll rebuild the every or there is a procedure to follow? My Server is a HP. Regards.

  Read the article

• How do I Change a damaged Disk in a Raid 5 array

  - by Egakagoc2xI

  Hi, I have a server with a 4-drives Raid 5 array; one of the disks is damaged. All the disks are hot pluggable. My Question is, I want to replace the damaged disk with a new one, do I have to shutdown the server or should I just change the hard disk with the server on and it will rebuild the array? There is a procedure to follow? My Server is a HP. Regards.

  Read the article

• Windows 7 Sharing issue on RAID 5 Array(s)

  - by K.A.I.N

  Greetings all, I'm having a very odd error with a windows 7 ultimate x64 system. The network system setup is as follows: 2x XP Pro 32 Bit machines 1x Vista ultimate x64 machine 2x Windows 7 x64 Ultimate machines all chained into 1x 16 port netgear prosafe gigabit switch, the windows 7 & vista machines are duplexed. Also there is a router (netgear Rangemax) chained off the switch I am basically using one of the windows 7 machines to host storage & stream media to other machines. To this end i have put 2x 3tb hardware RAID 5 arrays in it and assorted other spare disks which i have shared the roots of. The unusual problems start when i am getting Access denied, Please contact administrator for permission blah blah blah when trying to access both of the RAID 5 arrays but not the other stand alones. I have checked the permission settings, i have added everyone to the read permission for the root, i have tried moving things into sub directories then sharing them. I have tried various setting combinations in HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Lsa and always the same. I have tried flushing caches all round, disabling and re-enabling shares & sharing after restart as well as several other things & the result is always the same... No problem on individual drives but access denied on both the RAID arrays from both XP & Vista & Windows 7 machines. One interesting quirk that may lead to an answer is that there is no "offline status" information regarding the folders when you select the RAID 5s from a windows 7 machine yet there is on the normal drives which say they are online. It is as if the raid is present but turned off or spun down but as far as i was aware windows will spin an array back up on network request and on the machine itself the drives seem to be online and can be accessed. Have to admit this has me stumped. Any suggestions anyone? Thanks in advance for any fellow geek assistance. K.A.I.N

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10  | Next Page >