Search Results

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

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

  • Defeating the RAID5 write hole with ZFS (but not RAID-Z) [closed]

    - by Michael Shick
    I'm setting up a long-term storage system for keeping personal backups and archives. I plan to have RAID5 starting with a relatively small array and adding devices over time to expand storage. I may also want to convert to RAID6 down the road when the array gets large. Linux md is a perfect fit for this use case since it allows both of the changes I want on a live array and performance isn't at all important. Low cost is also great. Now, I also want to defend against file corruption, so it looked like a RAID-Z1 would be a good fit, but evidently I would only be able to add additional RAID5 (RAID-Z1) sets at a time rather than individual drives. I want to be able to add drives one at a time, and I don't want to have to give up another device for parity with every expansion. So at this point, it looks like I'll be using a plain ZFS filesystem on top of an md RAID5 array. That brings me to my primary question: Will ZFS be able to correct or at least detect corruption resulting from the RAID5 write hole? Additionally, any other caveats or advice for such a set up is welcome. I'll probably be using Debian, but I'll definitely be using Linux since I'm familiar with it, so that means only as new a version of ZFS as is available for Linux (via ZFS-FUSE or so).

    Read the article

  • Problem with RAID5 (mdadm) - disk detached

    - by poscaman
    Having these lines in /var/log/syslog Apr 18 16:53:05 Server kernel: [4487878.816036] ata4: EH in SWNCQ mode,QC:qc_active 0x1 sactive 0x1 Apr 18 16:53:05 Server kernel: [4487878.816058] ata4: SWNCQ:qc_active 0x1 defer_bits 0x0 last_issue_tag 0x0 Apr 18 16:53:05 Server kernel: [4487878.816059] dhfis 0x1 dmafis 0x1 sdbfis 0x0 Apr 18 16:53:05 Server kernel: [4487878.816093] ata4: ATA_REG 0x40 ERR_REG 0x0 Apr 18 16:53:05 Server kernel: [4487878.816108] ata4: tag : dhfis dmafis sdbfis sacitve Apr 18 16:53:05 Server kernel: [4487878.816125] ata4: tag 0x0: 1 1 0 1 Apr 18 16:53:05 Server kernel: [4487878.816150] ata4.00: exception Emask 0x0 SAct 0x1 SErr 0x0 action 0x6 frozen Apr 18 16:53:05 Server kernel: [4487878.816178] ata4.00: failed command: WRITE FPDMA QUEUED Apr 18 16:53:05 Server kernel: [4487878.816199] ata4.00: cmd 61/08:00:00:88:e0/00:00:e8:00:00/40 tag 0 ncq 4096 out Apr 18 16:53:05 Server kernel: [4487878.816200] res 40/00:00:01:4f:c2/00:00:00:00:00/00 Emask 0x4 (timeout) Apr 18 16:53:05 Server kernel: [4487878.816253] ata4.00: status: { DRDY } Apr 18 16:53:05 Server kernel: [4487878.816272] ata4: hard resetting link Apr 18 16:53:05 Server kernel: [4487878.816274] ata4: nv: skipping hardreset on occupied port Apr 18 16:53:06 Server kernel: [4487879.676029] ata4: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123 SControl 300) Apr 18 16:53:07 Server kernel: [4487880.416749] ata4.00: n_sectors mismatch 3907029168 != 268435455 Apr 18 16:53:07 Server kernel: [4487880.416752] ata4.00: revalidation failed (errno=-19) Apr 18 16:53:07 Server kernel: [4487880.416773] ata4.00: limiting speed to UDMA/133:PIO2 Apr 18 16:53:11 Server kernel: [4487884.676024] ata4: hard resetting link Apr 18 16:53:11 Server kernel: [4487884.676027] ata4: nv: skipping hardreset on occupied port Apr 18 16:53:12 Server kernel: [4487885.144032] ata4: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123 SControl 300) Apr 18 16:53:12 Server kernel: [4487885.240185] ata4.00: failed to IDENTIFY (INIT_DEV_PARAMS failed, err_mask=0x80) Apr 18 16:53:12 Server kernel: [4487885.240190] ata4.00: revalidation failed (errno=-5) Apr 18 16:53:12 Server kernel: [4487885.240210] ata4.00: disabled Apr 18 16:53:17 Server kernel: [4487890.144023] ata4: hard resetting link Apr 18 16:53:17 Server kernel: [4487891.024033] ata4: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123 SControl 300) Apr 18 16:53:17 Server kernel: [4487891.033357] ata4.00: ATA-8: WDC WD20EARS-00S8B1, 80.00A80, max UDMA/133 Apr 18 16:53:17 Server kernel: [4487891.033360] ata4.00: 3907029168 sectors, multi 1: LBA48 NCQ (depth 31/32) Apr 18 16:53:17 Server kernel: [4487891.048347] ata4.00: configured for UDMA/133 Apr 18 16:53:17 Server kernel: [4487891.048361] sd 3:0:0:0: [sdc] Result: hostbyte=DID_OK driverbyte=DRIVER_SENSE Apr 18 16:53:17 Server kernel: [4487891.048365] sd 3:0:0:0: [sdc] Sense Key : Aborted Command [current] [descriptor] Apr 18 16:53:17 Server kernel: [4487891.048369] Descriptor sense data with sense descriptors (in hex): Apr 18 16:53:17 Server kernel: [4487891.048371] 72 0b 00 00 00 00 00 0c 00 0a 80 00 00 00 00 00 Apr 18 16:53:17 Server kernel: [4487891.048378] 00 00 00 00 Apr 18 16:53:17 Server kernel: [4487891.048382] sd 3:0:0:0: [sdc] Add. Sense: No additional sense information Apr 18 16:53:17 Server kernel: [4487891.048385] sd 3:0:0:0: [sdc] CDB: Write(10): 2a 00 e8 e0 88 00 00 00 08 00 Apr 18 16:53:17 Server kernel: [4487891.048393] end_request: I/O error, dev sdc, sector 3907028992 Apr 18 16:53:17 Server kernel: [4487891.048420] sd 3:0:0:0: rejecting I/O to offline device Apr 18 16:53:17 Server kernel: [4487891.048440] sd 3:0:0:0: rejecting I/O to offline device Apr 18 16:53:17 Server kernel: [4487891.048458] end_request: I/O error, dev sdc, sector 3907028992 Apr 18 16:53:17 Server kernel: [4487891.048477] md: super_written gets error=-5, uptodate=0 Apr 18 16:53:17 Server kernel: [4487891.048482] raid5: Disk failure on sdc, disabling device. Apr 18 16:53:17 Server kernel: [4487891.048483] raid5: Operation continuing on 3 devices. Apr 18 16:53:17 Server kernel: [4487891.048525] ata4: EH complete Apr 18 16:53:17 Server kernel: [4487891.048554] sd 3:0:0:0: rejecting I/O to offline device Apr 18 16:53:17 Server kernel: [4487891.048576] sd 3:0:0:0: rejecting I/O to offline device Apr 18 16:53:17 Server kernel: [4487891.048596] sd 3:0:0:0: rejecting I/O to offline device Apr 18 16:53:17 Server kernel: [4487891.048615] sd 3:0:0:0: [sdc] READ CAPACITY(16) failed Apr 18 16:53:17 Server kernel: [4487891.048617] sd 3:0:0:0: [sdc] Result: hostbyte=DID_NO_CONNECT driverbyte=DRIVER_OK Apr 18 16:53:17 Server kernel: [4487891.048620] sd 3:0:0:0: [sdc] Sense not available. Apr 18 16:53:17 Server kernel: [4487891.048624] sd 3:0:0:0: rejecting I/O to offline device Apr 18 16:53:17 Server kernel: [4487891.048643] sd 3:0:0:0: rejecting I/O to offline device Apr 18 16:53:17 Server kernel: [4487891.048663] sd 3:0:0:0: rejecting I/O to offline device Apr 18 16:53:17 Server kernel: [4487891.048681] sd 3:0:0:0: [sdc] READ CAPACITY failed Apr 18 16:53:17 Server kernel: [4487891.048683] sd 3:0:0:0: [sdc] Result: hostbyte=DID_NO_CONNECT driverbyte=DRIVER_OK Apr 18 16:53:17 Server kernel: [4487891.048685] sd 3:0:0:0: [sdc] Sense not available. Apr 18 16:53:17 Server kernel: [4487891.048689] sd 3:0:0:0: rejecting I/O to offline device Apr 18 16:53:17 Server kernel: [4487891.048709] sd 3:0:0:0: rejecting I/O to offline device Apr 18 16:53:17 Server kernel: [4487891.048800] sd 3:0:0:0: rejecting I/O to offline device Apr 18 16:53:17 Server kernel: [4487891.048860] sd 3:0:0:0: rejecting I/O to offline device Apr 18 16:53:17 Server kernel: [4487891.049028] sd 3:0:0:0: [sdc] Asking for cache data failed Apr 18 16:53:17 Server kernel: [4487891.049048] sd 3:0:0:0: [sdc] Assuming drive cache: write through Apr 18 16:53:17 Server kernel: [4487891.049071] sdc: detected capacity change from 2000398934016 to 0 Apr 18 16:53:17 Server kernel: [4487891.049080] ata4.00: detaching (SCSI 3:0:0:0) Apr 18 16:53:18 Server kernel: [4487891.061149] sd 3:0:0:0: [sdc] Stopping disk Apr 18 16:53:18 Server kernel: [4487891.485492] RAID5 conf printout: Apr 18 16:53:18 Server kernel: [4487891.485496] --- rd:4 wd:3 Apr 18 16:53:18 Server kernel: [4487891.485500] disk 0, o:1, dev:sdb Apr 18 16:53:18 Server kernel: [4487891.485502] disk 1, o:0, dev:sdc Apr 18 16:53:18 Server kernel: [4487891.485504] disk 2, o:1, dev:sdd Apr 18 16:53:18 Server kernel: [4487891.485506] disk 3, o:1, dev:sde Apr 18 16:53:18 Server kernel: [4487891.497014] RAID5 conf printout: Apr 18 16:53:18 Server kernel: [4487891.497016] --- rd:4 wd:3 Apr 18 16:53:18 Server kernel: [4487891.497018] disk 0, o:1, dev:sdb Apr 18 16:53:18 Server kernel: [4487891.497019] disk 2, o:1, dev:sdd Apr 18 16:53:18 Server kernel: [4487891.497021] disk 3, o:1, dev:sde Apr 18 16:53:18 Server kernel: [4487891.838719] scsi 3:0:0:0: Direct-Access ATA WDC WD20EARS-00S 80.0 PQ: 0 ANSI: 5 Apr 18 16:53:18 Server kernel: [4487891.838886] sd 3:0:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg3 type 0 Apr 18 16:53:18 Server kernel: [4487891.838911] sd 3:0:0:0: [sdf] 3907029168 512-byte logical blocks: (2.00 TB/1.81 TiB) Apr 18 16:53:18 Server kernel: [4487891.838964] sd 3:0:0:0: [sdf] Write Protect is off Apr 18 16:53:18 Server kernel: [4487891.838967] sd 3:0:0:0: [sdf] Mode Sense: 00 3a 00 00 Apr 18 16:53:18 Server kernel: [4487891.838988] sd 3:0:0:0: [sdf] Write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled, doesn't support DPO or FUA Apr 18 16:53:20 Server kernel: [4487891.839147] sdf: unknown partition table Apr 18 16:53:20 Server kernel: [4487893.130026] sd 3:0:0:0: [sdf] Attached SCSI disk Right now, i'm unable to do anything on /dev/sdc. Is there any way to try to re-attach it? I don't want to power-down the server unless absolutely necessary System: Debian Stable 2.6.32-5-amd64 mdadm version 3.1.4-1+8efb9d1 cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] md0 : active raid5 sdb[0] sdc[4](F) sde[3] sdd[2] 5860543488 blocks level 5, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [4/3] [U_UU] unused devices: <none> mdadm --examine --scan ARRAY /dev/md0 UUID=1a7744b5:912ec7af:f82a9565:e3b453b4

    Read the article

  • MSA20 RAID5 recovery failure due to URE on another disk

    - by Andrey
    I have MSA20 with one disk array on 12 disks and 3 LUNs on it (each raid 5). A few days ago one disk in one of the LUNs was failed and I replaced it. But raid5 recovering failed at 13% and I see in ADU report that one of the disk has "Errors Logged = 5566" and according SCSI specifications it is URE (Sense Code=0x11, Qualifier=0x00). In serial log I also see URE error. It seems that Raid5 can't be rebuilt because of this. So I have a few questions: Is there a way to recover raid5 still? If I leave new disk that was replaced and remove disk with URE, will other LUNs be destroyed or just failed LUN? If all LUNs will fail what is the sense to make each LUN with own raid on one disk group array if 2 failed disk can destroy all? As I understand the preferred way is to create one disk array for one LUN in future and not one array with few LUNs? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Debian Raid5 LVM

    - by Develman
    I want to setup a debian server mainly used as data storage. I have 4 devices: /dev/sda (160GB) - installed debian on it /dev/sdb, /dev/sdc, /dev/sdd (all 500GB) - created a raid5 array with it Now I am not sure, how to go on. Is it usefull to create a LVM on the raid5 /dev/md0? How can I do this? Is there a good HowTo? Or can I just create filesystem on the raid5 and create different partitions?

    Read the article

  • Safer RAID5 rebuilds using partially failed disks?

    - by arcticmac
    There have been lots of articles posted recently about how RAID5 is dangerous because of long resilver times, and in particular because of increasing chances of encountering a URE during the resilver. Obviously this is a significant concern. However, it seems that in many cases of interest (as long as you're keeping some kind of eye on your disks), when it comes time to rebuild the array, the disk that I'm replacing is still mostly readable. If you try to explain this predicament to the average layperson, they are typically very confused as to why you have two almost completely functional disks but can't produce one working array. It seems to me that there ought to be some way to take advantage of this to make rebuilds safer, as long as I'm willing to have the RAID5 be read-only for a couple of days while it rebuilds. Conceptually, what I have in mind looks something like this: When a disk fails, immediately take the RAID5 offline or mount it read-only Attach a new disk (either in a spare bay, or externally via eSATA) and begin rebuilding it to replace the failed one. If known, perhaps start with the stripes in which the failure occurred, to minimize the chances of losing those if another disk fails. In the event that a second disk experiences a URE or other failure during the rebuild, try to source that data from the disk that is being replaced. Presumably if this happens, more rebuilding would be necessary. When complete, shut down the server, swap the replacement drive into the original bay if desired, and bring the array back up. Obviously such a process would not be appropriate for applications where uptime is critical or data loss cannot be tolerated, but it seems to me that this could help considerably to improve the reliability of RAID5. I assume that there's not a good way to implement a recovery like this at present, given that I haven't seen any indication of tools that are designed to do this, and that it seems like it would be rather obtuse to work out manually. Are there also technical issues with it that I haven't thought of (I'm still fairly new to RAID stuff)? Any thoughts on how hard something like this would be to implement (e.g. in linux md raid)?

    Read the article

  • Growing a Linux software RAID5 array

    - by chrismetcalf
    On my home file server, I've got a 1.5TB software RAID5 array, built from four 500gb Western Digital drives. I've got a fifth drive that I usually run as a hot spare (but have out of the array at the moment), but if I can I'd like to add that to the array and grow it to 2TB since I'm running out of space. I Googled for guidance, but there seem to be a lot of differing opinions out there (many of them probably now out-of-date) as to whether or not that is possible and/or smart. What's the right way to go about this, or should I start looking into building a new array with more space? Version details: %> cat /etc/issue Debian GNU/Linux 5.0 \n \l %> uname -a Linux magrathea 2.6.26-1-686-bigmem #1 SMP Sat Jan 10 19:13:22 UTC 2009 i686 GNU/Linux %> /sbin/mdadm --version mdadm - v2.6.7.2 - 14th November 2008 %> cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : [raid1] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] md1 : active raid1 hdc1[0] hdd1[1] 293033536 blocks [2/2] [UU] md0 : active raid5 sde1[3] sda1[0] sdc1[2] sdb1[1] 1465151808 blocks level 5, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [4/4] [UUUU]

    Read the article

  • RAID5 and different sizes of HDDs

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

    Read the article

  • mdadm raid5 recover double disk failure - with a twist (drive order)

    - by Peter Bos
    Let me acknowledge first off that I have made mistakes, and that I have a backup for most but not all of the data on this RAID. I still have hope of recovering the rest of the data. I don't have the kind of money to take the drives to a recovery expert company. Mistake #0, not having a 100% backup. I know. I have a mdadm RAID5 system of 4x3TB. Drives /dev/sd[b-e], all with one partition /dev/sd[b-e]1. I'm aware that RAID5 on very large drives is risky, yet I did it anyway. Recent events The RAID become degraded after a two drive failure. One drive [/dev/sdc] is really gone, the other [/dev/sde] came back up after a power cycle, but was not automatically re-added to the RAID. So I was left with a 4 device RAID with only 2 active drives [/dev/sdb and /dev/sdd]. Mistake #1, not using dd copies of the drives for restoring the RAID. I did not have the drives or the time. Mistake #2, not making a backup of the superblock and mdadm -E of the remaining drives. Recovery attempt I reassembled the RAID in degraded mode with mdadm --assemble --force /dev/md0, using /dev/sd[bde]1. I could then access my data. I replaced /dev/sdc with a spare; empty; identical drive. I removed the old /dev/sdc1 from the RAID mdadm --fail /dev/md0 /dev/sdc1 Mistake #3, not doing this before replacing the drive I then partitioned the new /dev/sdc and added it to the RAID. mdadm --add /dev/md0 /dev/sdc1 It then began to restore the RAID. ETA 300 mins. I followed the process via /proc/mdstat to 2% and then went to do other stuff. Checking the result Several hours (but less then 300 mins) later, I checked the process. It had stopped due to a read error on /dev/sde1. Here is where the trouble really starts I then removed /dev/sde1 from the RAID and re-added it. I can't remember why I did this; it was late. mdadm --manage /dev/md0 --remove /dev/sde1 mdadm --manage /dev/md0 --add /dev/sde1 However, /dev/sde1 was now marked as spare. So I decided to recreate the whole array using --assume-clean using what I thought was the right order, and with /dev/sdc1 missing. mdadm --create /dev/md0 --assume-clean -l5 -n4 /dev/sdb1 missing /dev/sdd1 /dev/sde1 That worked, but the filesystem was not recognized while trying to mount. (It should have been EXT4). Device order I then checked a recent backup I had of /proc/mdstat, and I found the drive order. md0 : active raid5 sdb1[0] sde1[4] sdd1[2] sdc1[1] 8790402048 blocks super 1.2 level 5, 512k chunk, algorithm 2 [4/4] [UUUU] I then remembered this RAID had suffered a drive loss about a year ago, and recovered from it by replacing the faulty drive with a spare one. That may have scrambled the device order a bit...so there was no drive [3] but only [0],[1],[2], and [4]. I tried to find the drive order with the Permute_array script: https://raid.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Permute_array.pl but that did not find the right order. Questions I now have two main questions: I screwed up all the superblocks on the drives, but only gave: mdadm --create --assume-clean commands (so I should not have overwritten the data itself on /dev/sd[bde]1. Am I right that in theory the RAID can be restored [assuming for a moment that /dev/sde1 is ok] if I just find the right device order? Is it important that /dev/sde1 be given the device number [4] in the RAID? When I create it with mdadm --create /dev/md0 --assume-clean -l5 -n4 \ /dev/sdb1 missing /dev/sdd1 /dev/sde1 it is assigned the number [3]. I wonder if that is relevant to the calculation of the parity blocks. If it turns out to be important, how can I recreate the array with /dev/sdb1[0] missing[1] /dev/sdd1[2] /dev/sde1[4]? If I could get that to work I could start it in degraded mode and add the new drive /dev/sdc1 and let it resync again. It's OK if you would like to point out to me that this may not have been the best course of action, but you'll find that I realized this. It would be great if anyone has any suggestions.

    Read the article

  • HP DL380 RAID5 Mistake

    - by Eddy
    I had drives fail in both logical drives on a server. When I replaced failed 146GB drive in Raid 5 array with four (4) 146GB drives. On reboot the Smart Array controller asked if I wanted to accept data loss. Guess mistake to choose yes. Can't seem to find a way to get system to repair RAID5 but it seems to want to just create a new partition. Is there anyway I can go back and get the system to restore the data from other three drives now that I said accept data loss?

    Read the article

  • RAID5 on SmartArray P410i online resize

    - by datacompboy
    I have P410i+256M Cache without battery backup. My RAID5 was build over 3*136GB disks, now all disks were replaced to a 3*300GB array. How can I extend it to use the whole space? HPacucli doesn't allows that, I think this might be because no battery is present. I have a redundant power supply. All data is mirrored over DRBD to a secondary server, so I can try to resize with a chance of loss of data in case of power failure, but I prefer to have an online resize.

    Read the article

  • Intel Rapid Storage Technology - Raid5 is very slow

    - by Cederstrom
    Hi, I build a computer with a raid5, using the motherboards raid controller (ASUS P7H57D-V EVO - intel Rapid Storage Technology). The read and write are however very slow, when using the raid controller :( - I am using Windows 2008 R2, and when using the windows software raid, it was ok in speed - so there must be an issue with the controller? Im using 6 disks on 2TB each. Do anyone have any idea why its so slow, and how to fix it? I rather not pick the easy solutiuon of "just buy a raid controller" :| If you need more info about my setup, please just ask. Thanks :)

    Read the article

  • Server 2008 RAID5 resynching

    - by benpage
    I built a W2K8 R2 server last weekend, and built a R5 array using Disk Management, 5x 1TB drives. For the next 60 hours the status said 'Resynching (X%)' as it built the array. during this time i did read and write to the drive (slowly) and once the rebuild was complete speeds were quite fast. I was copying over some data from a USB hard drive overnight, and the machine crashed (looking in the error i believe it was the driver for the usb drive) and so the RAID5 went back to resynching, since the machine was not shut down properly. The issue is, it's been about 48 hours since that started and I'm happy to say it will take roughly 60 hours again to resynch, however.. all this time in Disk Management, the status has only said 'Resynching', not 'Resynching (X%)'. The hard drive light is going nuts, and read/writes are slow again, so I'm assuming it is actually resynching. The question is - is that a correct assumption? and why is disk management not telling me what %age it's done? Is this normal behaviour for a not-properly-shut-down r5 array?

    Read the article

  • RAID5 issue after replacing motherboard and upgrading firmware

    - by 8steve8
    ok so ive had a 4x2TB(samsung HD204UI w/firmware patch) raid5 array working normally for about a month. It was in a h57 gigabyte motherboard using the intel raid with Windows 7 x64. Today I got an intel h67 motherboard, so I upgraded the intel raid drivers to 10.1.0.1008 from 9.6.0.1014, and I'm not sure if i checked after a reboot, but it caused no problems. I swapped in the new dh67 motherboard, and my array status was "failed". 2 of the 4 drives listed themselves as members, while the other two drives listed themselves as non-members. I tried going back to the old h57 mobo, and downgrading the raid drivers, but the issue remains. It's not port dependent, 2 of the drives always come up as non-members regardless of what port or motherboard they are plugged into. This screenshot should show that the SNs match, which raises the question why the software doesn't realize the drive is a member of the array. I'd like to know if anyone has experienced anything similar, and what should I do, can I force the drive to be recognized as a member (without wiping data)?

    Read the article

  • strange raid5 issue:

    - by 8steve8
    ok so ive had a 4x2TB(samsung HD204UI w/firmware patch) raid5 array working normally for about a month. It was in a h57 gigabyte motherboard using the intel raid with windows 7 x64. Today I got an intel h67 motherboard, so I upgraded the intel raid drivers to 10.1.0.1008 from 9.6.0.1014, and I'm not sure if i checked after a reboot, but it caused no problems. I swapped in the new dh67 motherboard, and my array status was "failed". 2 of the 4 drives listed themselves as members, while the other two drives listed themselves as non-members. I tried going back to the old h57 mobo, and downgrading the raid drivers, but the issue remains. It's not port dependent, 2 of the drives always come up as non-members regardless of what port or motherboard they are plugged into. the screenshot should show that the SNs match, which begs the question why the software doesn't realize the drive is a member of the array: http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/6145/both.png I'd like to know if anyone has experienced anything similar, and what should i do, can i force the drive to be recognized as a member (without wiping data)?

    Read the article

  • strange raid5 issue: [closed]

    - by 8steve8
    ok so ive had a 4x2TB(samsung HD204UI w/firmware patch) raid5 array working normally for about a month. It was in a h57 gigabyte motherboard using the intel raid with windows 7 x64. Today I got an intel h67 motherboard, so I upgraded the intel raid drivers to 10.1.0.1008 from 9.6.0.1014, and I'm not sure if i checked after a reboot, but it caused no problems. I swapped in the new dh67 motherboard, and my array status was "failed". 2 of the 4 drives listed themselves as members, while the other two drives listed themselves as non-members. I tried going back to the old h57 mobo, and downgrading the raid drivers, but the issue remains. It's not port dependent, 2 of the drives always come up as non-members regardless of what port or motherboard they are plugged into. the screenshot should show that the SNs match, which begs the question why the software doesn't realize the drive is a member of the array: http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/6145/both.png I'd like to know if anyone has experienced anything similar, and what should i do, can i force the drive to be recognized as a member (without wiping data)?

    Read the article

  • RAID5 over LVM on Ubuntu Server 12.04.3

    - by April Ethereal
    I'm trying to create a RAID5 software array using LVM. I use VirtualBox as I'm only learning how LVM works. So I've created 4 virtual SCSI drives and then did the following: pvcreate /dev/sd[b-e] vgcreate /dev/sd[b-e] raid5_vg lvcreate --type raid5 -i 3 -L 1G -n raid_lv raid5_vg However, I get an error after the last command: WARNING: Unrecognised segment type raid5 Using default stripesize 64.00 KiB Rounding size (256 extents) up to stripe boundary size (258 extents) Cannot update volume group raid5_vg with unknown segments in it! So it looks like raid5 is not a valid segment type. "lvm segtypes" also doesn't contain 'raid5' entry: [email protected]:~# lvm segtypes striped zero error free snapshot mirror So my question is - how could I create RAID5 logical volume using LVM only? It seems that it is possible, I saw a few references (not for Ubuntu, unfortunately) for RedHat and Gentoo systems. I don't want to use mdadm for now, until I find out that it is mandatory. Some info about my system is below: [email protected]:~# uname -a Linux ubuntu-lvm 3.8.0I use Ubuntu Server 12.04.3 (i686)-29-generic #42~precise1-Ubuntu SMP Wed Aug 14 15:31:16 UTC 2013 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux [email protected]:~# dpkg -l | grep lvm ii lvm2 2.02.66-4ubuntu7.3 The Linux Logical Volume Manager Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Thecus N5200, disk has dropped out of RAID5

    - by Anders Ekdahl
    We have a Thecus 5200 NAS here at work with five WD Caviar Black 2TB disks in a RADI5 array. Yesterday, disk 4 dropped out of the array, and in the NAS web interface there's a warning about the RAID array being "degraded". When I go into Storage - Disks, disk 1 and 4 has a warning next to them. When I click on the warnings, this information about the disks are displayed: Tray Number 4 Model WD2001FASS-00W2B Power On Hours 2403 Hours Temperature Celsius 34 Reallocated Sector Count 66 Current Pending Sector 1447 Raw Read Error Rate 61 Seek Error Rate 0 Hardware ECC Recovered N/A Tray Number 1 Model WD2001FASS-00W2B Power On Hours 2403 Hours Temperature Celsius 32 Reallocated Sector Count 0 Current Pending Sector 1465 Raw Read Error Rate 0 Seek Error Rate 0 Hardware ECC Recovered N/A I'm not really an expert on either disks or RAID arrays. Does this indicate that the fourth disk is damaged, and needs to be replaced? And what about disk number one? It has a warning, but it's still in the array. Is it safe to add the fourth disk back into the array as a spare? I can't find any way to add it back as a it were before.

    Read the article

  • MDADM RAID5 array showing as CLEAN FAULTY

    - by Dean Reilly
    A drive dropped out of my raid 5 array yesterday. It looks like the reason was due to a bad controller so I switched it out and attempted to re-add the drive but mdadm claimed it couldn't do it. So I zerod the superblock and just added the drive normally and left it to resync. When I came to check on the array this morning I was unable to mount it at all and it's now showing as CLEAN FAULTY with two drives missing. The two missing drives are listed as spare and faulty spare. Is there anything I can do in this situation or is the array gone?

    Read the article

  • How can I create a 4TB partition on my software RAID5 device?

    - by Kris Harper
    I have set up a RAID5 device with three 2TB hard drives using mdadm. The device was successfully created, but I cannot seem to create a partition on the device. When I try to make an ext3 or ext4 partition via Disk Utility, I get the following error Error creating partition: helper exited with exit code 1: In part_add_partition: device_file=/dev/md0, start=0, size=4000526106624, type= Entering MS-DOS parser (offset=0, size=4000526106624) MSDOS_MAGIC found found partition type 0xee => protective MBR for GPT Exiting MS-DOS parser Entering EFI GPT parser GPT magic found partition_entry_lba=2 num_entries=128 size_of_entry=128 Leaving EFI GPT parser EFI GPT partition table detected containing partition table scheme = 3 got it got disk new partition guid '' is not valid type '' for GPT appear to be malformed I have seen this question, but that seems to suggest using gparted to do the partitioning. I'm fine with doing that, but my RAID device doesn't show up in the list of gparted devices. I suspect because this is a RAID and not a regular disk. I have already created a GPT partition table on the device. How can I add a partition to my device?

    Read the article

  • Should I worry about the integrity of my linux software RAID5 after a crash or kernel panic?

    - by Josh
    I have a dual core Intel i5 Ubuntu Server 10.04 LTS system running kernel 2.6.32-22-server #33-Ubuntu SMP with three 1TB SATA hard drives set up in a RAID5 array using linux md devices. I have read about the RAID5 write hole and am concerned: if my linux system locks up or kernel panics, should I be assume that the integrety of my data has been compromised and restore from backup? How can I know if the data on the RAID5 array is "safe"?

    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

  • Reshape linux md raid5 that is already being reshaped?

    - by smammy
    I just converted my RAID1 array to a RAID5 array and added a third disk to it. I'd like to add a fourth disk without waiting fourteen hours for the first reshape to complete. I just did this: mdadm /dev/md0 --add /dev/sdf1 mdadm --grow /dev/md0 --raid-devices=3 --backup-file=/root/md0_n3.bak The entry in /proc/mdstat looks like this: md0 : active raid5 sdf1[2] sda1[0] sdb1[1] 976759936 blocks super 0.91 level 5, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [3/3] [UUU] [>....................] reshape = 1.8% (18162944/976759936) finish=834.3min speed=19132K/sec Now I'd like to do this: mdadm /dev/md0 --add /dev/sdd1 mdadm --grow /dev/md0 --raid-devices=4 --backup-file=/root/md8_n4.bak Is this safe, or do I have to wait for the first reshape operation to complete? P.S.: I know I should have added both disks first, and then reshaped from 2 to 4 devices, but it's a little late for that.

    Read the article

  • Bad performance with Linux software RAID5 and LUKS encryption

    - by Philipp Wendler
    I have set up a Linux software RAID5 on three hard drives and want to encrypt it with cryptsetup/LUKS. My tests showed that the encryption leads to a massive performance decrease that I cannot explain. The RAID5 is able to write 187 MB/s [1] without encryption. With encryption on top of it, write speed is down to about 40 MB/s. The RAID has a chunk size of 512K and a write intent bitmap. I used -c aes-xts-plain -s 512 --align-payload=2048 as the parameters for cryptsetup luksFormat, so the payload should be aligned to 2048 blocks of 512 bytes (i.e., 1MB). cryptsetup luksDump shows a payload offset of 4096. So I think the alignment is correct and fits to the RAID chunk size. The CPU is not the bottleneck, as it has hardware support for AES (aesni_intel). If I write on another drive (an SSD with LVM) that is also encrypted, I do have a write speed of 150 MB/s. top shows that the CPU usage is indeed very low, only the RAID5 xor takes 14%. I also tried putting a filesystem (ext4) directly on the unencrypted RAID so see if the layering is problem. The filesystem decreases the performance a little bit as expected, but by far not that much (write speed varying, but 100 MB/s). Summary: Disks + RAID5: good Disks + RAID5 + ext4: good Disks + RAID5 + encryption: bad SSD + encryption + LVM + ext4: good The read performance is not affected by the encryption, it is 207 MB/s without and 205 MB/s with encryption (also showing that CPU power is not the problem). What can I do to improve the write performance of the encrypted RAID? [1] All speed measurements were done with several runs of dd if=/dev/zero of=DEV bs=100M count=100 (i.e., writing 10G in blocks of 100M). Edit: If this helps: I'm using Ubuntu 11.04 64bit with Linux 2.6.38. Edit2: The performance stays approximately the same if I pass a block size of 4KB, 1MB or 10MB to dd.

    Read the article

  • Adaptec 2020SA RAID controller Set up in RAID5, one drive went down, can I still get data?

    - by SJaguar13
    I have 6 1tb drives in a RAID5. 1 drive went down. On the RAID was 2 virtual machines that I really need back up and running. The spare drive I have to put in the server is a 1.5tb drive, which exceeds the physical per drive limit of the 2020SA. The drive is found in the disk utility, but it is not found in the array management section. I cannot add the drive to the array to have it rebuild. I have a replacement drive along with some spares on their way from Newegg, but I am still looking at a few days of downtime. Is it possible to use the 5 working drives to get the VMs copied off and on to another server or do I just have to wait for the drives to get here?

    Read the article

  • Raid5 is off on my Lefthand P4500

    - by Soeren
    I have 1 cluster with serveral p4500. There is HW Raid5 and the Raid5 is split on: first 6 is one raid 5, and the other 6 is one raid 5. There were two disk that came up with a fault. I replaced both disk in same Raid5. Now the storagesystem says that Volumes is unaccessable and the Raid5 of the P4500 is down. How can I get the lefthand up and working again? Ive tried to put the old disk in the P4500 again, but this does not help. I also tryed to restart the disk shelf as well. Do you have any idea? Or something to get it to work again?

    Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10  | Next Page >