Debian Configuration :: Reorganizing Disks In MD RAID Array
Mar 4, 2010
I'm trying to do some RAID managing with mdadm. I would like to sync my spare disk and then remove it from the array for making a backup out of it with dd command (the best way i can think of to get the current image of the whole system as it can't be done using the active RAID as source, because is constantly in use and changing). So, I have RAID1 array with 1 spare and 2 active disks (configuration listed below). Now I would like to force spare to sync and then remove it from array, although not faulty.
However, mdadm man page states:
"Devices can only be removed from an array if they are not in active use. i.e. that must be spares or failed devices. To remove an active device, it must be marked as faulty first."
So, I'd have to mark a disk as faulty (which it is not) to be able to remove it from array. There seems to be several people reporting that they can't remove this faulty flag accidentally given to a drive. And mdadm does not give direct for such operation. Isn't there a way I could remove and add disks whenever feeling like it?? One way would be open the cover and physically remove the disk. I'm not taking the risk, though. System is almost always in use, so there is not much chance for me to power off for temporary disk removal.
RAID CONFIGURATION:
~# mdadm --detail /dev/md0
/dev/md0:
Version : 00.90.03
Creation Time : Fri Aug 4 17:38:26 2006
Raid Level : raid1
Array Size : 238950720 (227.88 GiB 244.69 GB)
View 3 Replies
ADVERTISEMENT
Dec 2, 2010
Alright, I have this issue on both SystemRescueCD and Debian Squeeze. I have an ASUS P5Q Turbo board that supports hardware RAID. If I configure an array and then start the Linux installer or boot the rescue CD, I get /dev/sda and /dev/sdb instead of an array. What gives? I need to start installing within the hour so I am desperate for an answer!
View 1 Replies
View Related
Aug 29, 2015
Just setup with Debian 8 (LXDE) a few weeks ago. Raid10 array was preexisting.
Was working well. After booting I would need to go to the save as then would need to enter the root password and everything would be good.
Can't access the array.
Used to use the command $ mount /dev/dm-o /home/myspace/folder under Debian 7.6 to mount the array (no longer works).
blkd lists a /dev/md0 but instead of UUID it is PTUUID
[Code] .....
View 0 Replies
View Related
Aug 31, 2010
concerning Linux, mdadm, and creating RAID Array's in Debian. I've done a lot of reading and research on RAID both on this board and elsewhere (The Linux Documentation Project's Software-RAID HOWTO is especially good), but I've run across something that no one seems to explain, and I'm not sure why. I'm instructed to create partitions on the drives I wish to add to my array. These partitions inevitably take up the whole disk, and are always have their system IDs set to "Linux raid autodetect". What I don't understand is why, after creating these partitions, some guides then go on to create an array (say a RAID5 one) with just the disks themselves as members, while others go on to create the RAID5 array with the previously created partitions as members. E.g.,
mdadm --create --verbose /dev/md0 --level=5 --raid-devices=4 /dev/sda /dev/sdb /dev/sdc /dev/sdd
vs.
mdadm --create --verbose /dev/md0 --level=5 --raid-devices=4 /dev/sda1 /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdc1 /dev/sdd1
What's the advantage of using one over the other?
View 3 Replies
View Related
Jul 2, 2011
New to linux in general and am having issues on setting up a Raid 1 array for two disks on an HP Proliant Microserver which I am looking to be accessible from my windows PC. I have installed the latest version of debian succesfully on a 250GB disk that came with the server. I have added 2 2TB disks which I would like to have in a RAID 1 array and to have visible from windows to store music/videos etc on. I have managed to partition the two disks to FAT32 (which I think is best) and have managed to configure the array so that it shows as active when I use cat /proc/mdstat. I have been following the steps in this article [URl]... squeeze-p2 and trying to adapt it to my situation.
I am stuck on the step to create the file systems using the mkfs command. I try mkfs.vfat /dev/md0 and it comes up with the error mkfs.vfat: command not found. I have tried mkfs -t vfat /dev/md0 and it give the error "mkfs.vfat: No such file or directory" So my question is how can I continue with the process of setting up the array? Or maybe I should be asking is it possible to set up an array with FAT32 formatted disks?
View 2 Replies
View Related
Sep 10, 2010
I have a 7-drive RAID array on my computer. Recently, my SATA PCI card died, and after going through multiple cards to find another one that worked with linux, I now can't assemble the array. The drives are no longer in the order they were in previously, and mdadm can't seem to reassemble the array. It says there are 2 drives and one spare, even though there were 7 drives and no spares. I know for a fact that none of the drives are corrupted, because one of the non-working RAID cards was still able to mount the array for a short period, but would loose the drives during resyncing (I later found out that the chipset on the card was had extremely limited linux support). I have tried running "mdadm --assemble --scan" and after the drive is partially assembled, I add the other drives with "mdadm --add /dev/md0 /dev/sdc1". These both return errors and will not complete on the new raid card.
Code:
aaron-desktop:~ aaron$ sudo mdadm --assemble /dev/md0
mdadm: /dev/md0 assembled from 2 drives and 1 spare - not enough to start the array.
[code]....
View 4 Replies
View Related
Nov 26, 2015
I'm having issues with a RAID array.
Setup is like this:
Debian Jessie, 2 hard disks, each having 2 partitions: /dev/sda1, /dev/sda2, /dev/sdb1, /dev/sdb2. Partitions were paired during installation, so they form /dev/md0 and /dev/md1. /dev/md0 is the root (/) partition, /dev/md1 is for /home.
At the end of the install process, I chose /dev/sda1 to carry Grub. And I think this is where I screwed things up.
After removing one of the hard drives, there was no boot capability. So, I installed Grub on /dev/sdb, too.
Now it displays the boot menu but cannot find the kernel. This is where I got lost in the process.
Do I need to reinstall the OS or is there a way to fix it? I suppose I have to edit Grub.
View 0 Replies
View Related
Apr 11, 2010
I wanted to merge my 1TB disks into and RAID 5 array, 4 of them in RAID 5 is above 2Terabytes limit of msdos partition tables which grub2 can boot from, so I decided to start up the system from scratch, by building it on GPT partitions, but seems grub2 won't boot from GPT partition because it drops to grub rescue and I can't really do anything from there.
here's my set up:
/dev/md0 (raid 1) - 100MB total:
- dev/sda1, /dev/sdb1, /dev/sdc1, /dev/sdd1
/dev/md1 (raid 5) - 45GB total:
- dev/sda2, /dev/sdb2, /dev/sdc2, /dev/sdd2
/dev/md2 (raid 5) - something bit lower than 3TB:
- dev/sda3, /dev/sdb3, /dev/sdc3, /dev/sdd3
any tips how to have this system up and running? Because I've spent like 3 days jumping over various problems
View 8 Replies
View Related
Jan 13, 2010
I'm looking to stock my SuperMicro P8SCi with two 1-2 TB SATA hard discs, for running backups and web hosting. There are reviews of certain disks stating that the low-power disks will get kicked out of the Raid due to their slow response time, and it also appears that there have been quality problems with these newer disks, as if the race to size has lowered their reliability.
Can someone recommend a good brand and specific disks that you've had experience with? I'd rather not need to replace these after putting them in, but I also don't want to pay significantly more for an illusion of quality.
View 2 Replies
View Related
Apr 15, 2011
I have a home server running Openfiler 2.3 x64 with 4x1.5TB software RAID 5 array (more details on the hardware and OS later). All was working well for two years until several weeks ago, the array failed with two faulty disks at the same time. Well, those thing could happen, especially if one is using desktop-grade disks instead of enterprise-grade ones (way too expensive for a home server). Since is was most likely a false positive, I've reassembled the array:
Code:
# mdadm --assemble --force /dev/md0 /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdc1 /dev/sdd1 /dev/sde1
mdadm: forcing event count in /dev/sdb1(0) from 110 upto 122
mdadm: forcing event count in /dev/sdc1(1) from 110 upto 122
[code]....
Right. Once is just a coincident but twice in such a sort period of time means that something is wrong. I've reassembled the array and again, all the files were intact. But now was the time to think seriously about backing up my array, so I've ordered a 2TB external disk and in the meantime kept the server off. When I got the external drive, I hooked it up to my Windows desktop, turned on the server and started copying the files. After about 10 minutes two drives failed again. I've reassembled, rebooted and started copying again, but after a few MBs, the copy process reported a problem - the files were unavailable. A few retried and the process resumed, but a few MBs later it had to stop again, for the same reason. Several more stops like those and two disks failed again. Looking at the /var/log/messages file, I found a lot of error like these:
Quote:
Apr 12 22:44:02 NAS kernel: [77047.467686] ata1.00: configured for UDMA/33
Apr 12 22:44:02 NAS kernel: [77047.523714] ata1.01: configured for UDMA/133
Apr 12 22:44:02 NAS kernel: [77047.523727] ata1: EH complete
[code]....
The motherboard is Gigabyte GA-G31M-ES2L based on Intel's G31 chipset, the 4 disks are Seagate 7200.11 (with a version of a firmware that doesn't cause frequent data corruption).
View 4 Replies
View Related
Mar 25, 2011
I have been running a server with an increasingly large md array and always been plagued with intermittent disk faults. For a long time, I've attributed those to either temperature or power glitches. I had just embarked on a quest to a) lower case and drive temperature. They were running between 43 and 47C, sometimes peaking at 52C, so I've added more case fan power and made sure the drive cage was in the flow (it has it's own fan, too). Also, I've upgraded my power supply and made very sure that all the connectors are good. The array currently is a RAID6 with 5 Seagate 1,5TB drives.
When everything seemed to be working fine, I looked at my SMART logs and found that two of my drives (both well over 14000 operating hours) were showing uncorrectible bad blocks. Since it's RAID6, I figured, I couldn't do much harm, ran a badblocks test on it, zeroed the blocks that were reported bad, figuring the drive defect management would remap them to a good part of the disk and zeroed the superblock. I then added it back to the pack and the resync started. At around 50%, a second drive decided to go and shortly thereafter a third. Now, with two out of five drives, RAID6 will fail. Fine. At least, no data will be written to it anymore, however, now I cannot reassemble the array anymore.
Whenever I try I get this:
Code:
mdadm --assemble --scan
mdadm: /dev/md1 assembled from 2 drives and 2 spares - not enough to start the array
Code:
cat /proc/mdstat
Personalities : [raid0] [raid1] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [linear]
md1 : inactive sdf1[4](S) sde1[6](S) sdg1[1](S) sdh1[5](S) sdd1[2](S)
7325679320 blocks super 1.0
md0 : active raid1 sdb2[0] sdc2[1]
312464128 blocks [2/2] [UU]
bitmap: 3/149 pages [12KB], 1024KB chunk
Which is not fine. I'm sure that three devices are fine (normally, a failed device would just rejoin the array, skipping most of the resync by way of the bitmap) so I should be able to reassemble the array with the two good ones and the one that failed last, then add the one that failed during the resync and finally re-add the original offender. However, I have no idea how to get them out of the "(S)" state.
Code:
mdadm --examine /dev/sdd1
/dev/sdd1:
Magic : a92b4efc
Version : 1.0
Feature Map : 0x1
Array UUID : d79d81cc:fff69625:5fb4ab4c:46d45217 .....
View 2 Replies
View Related
Feb 26, 2011
Using a fresh copy of server 10.04 im trying to simulate a failed raid array on a pair of 2tb disks. Here is the procedure i have been following so far:
- Remove the dead disk partitions from each of the raid 1 arrays (substitute the correct md devices and partitions)
- mdadm /dev/md0 -r /dev/sdb2
- mdadm /dev/md1 -r /dev/sdb3
[code]....
I get an error here that sfdisk does not support gpt (guid partition table). I thought sfdisk did support gpt? It says to use parted, but i cant find a command that copies a partition table over from another disk in parted documentation. Any suggestions? I suppose i could make the partitions manually, but im writing a procedure for people who arent that technical and i need it to be simple enough to be run in my absence. manually building the partitions would be too hard for them.
View 2 Replies
View Related
Dec 22, 2010
I installed Debian 5.0.3 (Backport with .34 Kernel), because my server hardware (Dell PowerEdge R210) needs special firmware and drivers.However, the installation went quite smooth.I put the system on a RAID 1 Array with about 500 GB space.s I said the installation went well, however, it doesn't boot! No GRUB, nothing
View 4 Replies
View Related
May 23, 2011
I need to set up a RAID 1 array on Squeeze. I have 3 partitions: sda1 is root, sda5 is home, and sda6 is swap. (sda2 is the extended partition containing home and swap. This was a clean installation, so I don't know what happened to sda3 and sda4...)
All the information that I've been able to find recommends doing something like this:
mdadm --create --verbose /dev/md0 --level=mirror --raid-devices=2 /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdc1
Do I need to type a separate command for each partition, or is there a better way to do it? Also, should I use the UUID instead of the dev names?
View 4 Replies
View Related
Aug 17, 2010
I have two similar 1 TB hard disks and I'm planning to configure them using RAID. I want to back up reliably all my personal files so I'm going to use RAID1 for /home.
As the system files aren't irreplaceable, I was thinking to use RAID0 for the root directory.
My question is: will this give me any performance boost? As far as I know, using either RAID0 or RAID1 would double read speeds and thus in both configurations boot-up time (for example) would be equally fast. Is this true in practice? If both RAID0 and RAID1 have equal read speeds, I'm planning to use RAID0 only for /tmp and swap.
Another thing that I was wondering is that if I'm using RAID0 for / and another disk fails, will there be some difficulties to recover my home folder that was mirrored in RAID1? If I'm using RAID0 only for /tmp, am I able to recover whole system without reinstalling Ubuntu?
View 9 Replies
View Related
Sep 27, 2010
I have a NETGEAR ReadyNAS NV+ with four 1TB drives in a RAID-5 array. This is our primary file storage. This has previously been backed up to a hardware RAID-0 array directly attached to our Windows server. The capacity of this backup array is no longer sufficient. So the plan was, take a bunch of 200GB to 320GB drives (And a 750) I had kicking around, chuck them in a couple of old SCSI drive enclosures I have collecting dust, attach them via IDA/SATA-to-USB adaptors to a USB hub, attach that to the server, create a JBOD array spanning the disks, and back up the NAS to that. Performance is not an issue as this is just to be used for backup, with the idea being as near to zero cost as possible (Spend so far = NZ$100�ish).
The first hurdle I struck was Windows not supporting Dynamic Disks on USB drives (Required to create a spanned volume). At first I resisted using another machine (i.e. a machine running Ubuntu) as I didn't want to dedicate a piece of hardware to backing up the NAS. I then decided it would be acceptable to do this via a VM, which is what I've done.So I have 10.04 running under VMWare Server 2.0.2 under Windows Server 2008 R2. The disks are all presented to the VM. I wasn't sure if I was going to end up creating the array under LVM or something else, but I noticed Disk Utility has an option to create an array, so I tried that. When I add two 250GB drives, the array size is 500GB. When I then add a 160GB drive, the array size drops to 480GB. Huh? If I keep adding disks (Regardless of order) the final array size comes out at 1.8 TB, as per the attached screenshot. Now with the following drives, I expected something more like:
160 + 250 + 250+ 750 + 250 +200 + 200 + 250 + 320 + 250 + 320 = 3.2TB
Am I missing something or making a false assumption somewhere?
View 4 Replies
View Related
May 17, 2011
I have installed a minimal system with openbox window decorator. (without any window manager) when i insert a flash disk to my computer, system doesn't mount it automaticly. i must mount it to a folder to use it.
for example:
View 14 Replies
View Related
Jan 19, 2016
I am running Debian 3.2.0-0.bpo.2-amd64 on hyper-v, my / volume ran out of space and is sitting at 100%, I have extended the disk size on hyper-v, however when I go to Fdisk I see duplicates of each disk.
I have total of 2 vhds on the vm, so I see 4 disks under fdisk. Here is the output of fdisk
root@apachevm:~# fdisk -l
Disk /dev/sda: 107.4 GB, 107374182400 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 13054 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 4096 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 4096 bytes
Disk identifier: 0x0009bfe8
[CODE]....
View 2 Replies
View Related
Dec 15, 2010
I have never seen this one before (see below) - note how /dev/sda1 is mounted from the first disk listed by fdisk, but /dev/sda2 comes from the second disk; what is going on here? This is what I did: I installed the latest debian "Testing", which went well - it found the disks in the order show by fdisk -l here. When it booted up after installation, it failed because it couldn't find /, which I repaired by editing the grub menu (I told it to start from the other disk), and it came up. But now I had to mount /u01 by hand from /dev/sda1; strange. I suppose I could just go and change the physical disks around, but I'd like to understand this. Any ideas?
# fdisk -l
Disk /dev/sda: 320.1 GB, 320072933376 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 38913 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
Disk identifier: 0x00000000
[Code]...
View 2 Replies
View Related
Dec 31, 2010
Is there a command line tool to shut off/spin down the hard disk either when not in use or when something is typed into the console? I'm trying to save power in a laptop I have..
View 2 Replies
View Related
Jun 24, 2009
I've tried to install Fedora 11, both 32 and 64 on my main machine.It could not install as it stops on the first install window. I've already filed a bug but really haven't seen any feed back yet.The bug has something to do with Anaconda and the Raid array but I really can't tell.
I have an Intel Board (see signature). I am running intel raid software under W7 currently.It works fine. But, I'm wondering, when I attempt to install F!!, is my current raid set-up causing problems? Do I need to get rid of the intel raid software and use a Fedor/Linux raid program to manage the raid array??
View 2 Replies
View Related
Jan 21, 2011
when I start my raid5, only 2 disks of 3 are active on md0. The 3rd disk is inactive on md_d0.When I do mdadm --examine, the two active disks report 2 active, 2 working, 1 failed. the inactive disk resports 3 active, 3 working, 0 failed.
View 2 Replies
View Related
Feb 17, 2011
I just experienced a HDD failure and while reorganizing the drives inthis machine I realized the benefits of UUID instead of /dev/sdX nomenclature. I am trying to determine the UUID of 2 disks that are assembled in a RAID1 array. right now they are /dev/sde & /dev/sdf with each only one partition. I tried ls -l /dev/disk/by-uuid but I get only the UUID of other disks, not the ones currently ID'd as sde & sdf. my mdadm.conf assembles several raid arrays all by UUID, but somehow, I cant recall how I got the UUIDs of the other HDDs at first...
View 14 Replies
View Related
Aug 19, 2010
We've started using Debian based servers more and more in work and are getting the hang of it more and more every day. Right now I'm an ace at setting up partitions, software RAID and LVM volumes etc through the installer, but if I ever need to do the same thing once the system's up and running then I become unstuck.
Is there any way I can get to partman post-install, or any similar tools that do the same thing? Or failing that are there any simple guides to doing these things through the various command line tools?
View 4 Replies
View Related
Mar 21, 2011
I have 2x 1.5TB hard disks and I'm going to buy a new 2TB drive soon. First though I just wanted to check that I could partition off the first 1/4 to 1/3 of the 2TB drive (leaving 1.5TB or more free) and install Debian to that part, then use the remainder of the disk in combination with the 2x 1.5 TB drives in RAID 5? i.e. can you mix whole drives and with partitions from other drives in RAID 5 and/or is it best to just stick with complete drives for the RAID array?I only have room for 3 drives in the small mATX case that houses my NAS device and I want to maximise storage capacity and minimise expense.
View 2 Replies
View Related
Feb 20, 2016
How can i get a RAID virtual image disk?
What i need is to mount several directories from any other partiton (or file system) as a new merge file system that can grow or decrease depending on the free space. As if it was a dinamic RAID,so i can work with huge files distributed over the partitions mounted.
Ejemp: /mnt/sda1/dir_raid1 + /home/dir_raid2 + /mnt/sda3/dir_raid3 ---> /mnt/RAID/
mhddfs and unionfs <---- are not the solution im searching (cant use huge files)
View 0 Replies
View Related
Mar 24, 2011
If you want, skip straight to the 'QUESTION' at the end of my post & refer to the 'EXPLANATION' later. EXPLANATION: Using Debian 6.01 Squeeze 64-bit. Just put together a brand new 3.3Ghz 6-core AMD. I had a nightmare with my Highpoint 640 raid controller, apparently because Debian Squeeze now handles raid through sysfs rather than /proc/scsi. The solution to this, of course, is to recompile the kernel with the appropriate module for /proc/scsi support. So I thought "screw that" and I've yanked out the raid card & went with Debians software raid. This allowed me to basically complete my mission. The raid is totally up and running, except for one final step... I can't get the raid to automount at boot.
My hardware setup;
- Debian is running totally on a 64Gb SSD. (sda)
- I have 3x 2Tb hard drives used for storage on a raid 1 array (sdc,sdd,sde)
[Code]....
View 2 Replies
View Related
Feb 25, 2010
I have servers which contain SATA disks and SAS disks. I was testing the speed of writing on these servers and I recognized that SAS 10.000 disks much more slowly than the SATA 7200. What do you think about this slowness? What are the reasons of this slowness?
I am giving the below rates (values) which I took from my test (from my comparisons between SAS 10.000 and SATA 7200);
dd if=/dev/zero of=bigfile.txt bs=1024 count=1000000 when this comment was run in SAS disk server, I took this output(10.000 rpm)
(a new server,2 CPU 8 core and 8 gb ram)
1000000+0 records in
1000000+0 records out
1024000000 bytes (1.0 GB) copied, 12.9662 s, 79.0 MB/s (I have not used this server yet) (hw raid1)
[Code].....
View 3 Replies
View Related
Aug 16, 2011
I have built a couple RAID's, but I'm uncertain of how I should format the partitions of the raid. Should I format partitions on each disk, and then add them to a raid, or should I create a raid on unformated disks and then format the raid as a partition? Does it matter, and are there performance/reliability issues? I'm creating a RAID-5 using 3 SATA disks on RHEL for user data area.
View 5 Replies
View Related
Mar 13, 2010
I just expanded my raid 5 array from 3*2TB to 4*2TB and mdadm made the grow successfully and shows an md0 dev with the size of 6TB usable data. Now my problem is that Debian (Lenny) dosn´t show the right amount. See below
######### MDADM DETAILS OF ARRAY ##########
> mdadm --detail /dev/md0
/dev/md0:
Version : 0.90
Creation Time : Mon Dec 14 22:30:46 2009
Raid Level : raid5
[Code].....
View 3 Replies
View Related
