Debian Configuration :: Mdadm Raid5 Reshape Hung?
Mar 6, 2010
i was adding another disk to my raid 5, all was going well it started the reshape, got past the critical zone, worked for 20mins, but now it seems to have crashed.When i cat /proc/mdstat, or mdadm -D /dev/md0, those programes hang and dont print anything or return.from my kern.log i can see that there was an error on a disk, the raid array removed it, was going to continue the reshape but finished immediately. Anyone know what i should do?
Mar 6 16:20:26 Aries kernel: [1931119.599107] md: reshape of RAID array md0
Mar 6 16:20:26 Aries kernel: [1931119.599107] md: minimum _guaranteed_ speed: 1000 KB/sec/disk.
Mar 6 16:20:26 Aries kernel: [1931119.599107] md: using maximum available idle IO bandwidth (but not more
[code]....
View 2 Replies
ADVERTISEMENT
Jun 30, 2011
I know you can fail and then remove a drive from a RAID5 array. This leaves the array in a degraded state.
How can you remove a drive and convert the array to just a regular, clean array?
View 9 Replies
View Related
May 24, 2011
I have Squeeze with 2.6.32 kernel, fresh installation and Intel 82845G/GL[Brookdale-G]/GE Chipset Integrated Graphics Device.I have done all updates, but Gnome Desktop freezes every day completely, I can move the mouse, but nothing happens.Keyboard works, but I can press only Ctrl-Atl-F1 and Ctrl-Alt-Del to reboot.
May 23 20:19:56 Squeeze kernel: [ 644.868007] [drm:i915_hangcheck_elapsed] *ERROR* Hangcheck timer elapsed... GPU hung
May 23 20:19:56 Squeeze kernel: [ 644.868018] render error detected, EIR: 0x00000000
May 23 20:19:56 Squeeze kernel: [ 644.868724] [drm:i915_do_wait_request] *ERROR* i915_do_wait_request returns -5 (awaiting 8250 at 8249)
View 10 Replies
View Related
Jun 14, 2011
I cant seem to get my RAID 5 (consisting of 8 1tb hard drives) assembled for some reason and I have no idea why and cant find any solutions online. Ill go ahead and show what my problem is:
here is all my hard drives:
Code:
server:~$ sudo fdisk -l
Disk /dev/sda: 10.2 GB, 10242892800 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 1245 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
Disk identifier: 0x0004f041
[Code]....
So as you can see the array for those last four look fine however for the first four it marks the last four drives as faulty for some reason. I am kind of clueless to do from this point on honestly, I have data on this array that I'd really like to save.
View 3 Replies
View Related
May 3, 2010
Created my own file server/nas, but get stuck in a problem after couple of months. I have a server with 4x 1,5tb disks, all connected to sata ports and 1 40gb ata133 disk running ubuntu 9.10 x64 amd. I've created a raid5 array using mdadm. It all worked great for couple of months but lately the raid5 array is degraded. disk sdd1 is faulting every few days. I have checked the drive but it is fine. If I re-add the disk and wait for 6 hours my raid5 array is all fine again, but after a few shutdowns, it is degraded.
my mdadm detail:
Quote:
root@ubuntu: sudo mdadm --detail /dev/md0
/dev/md0:
Version : 00.90
Creation Time : Mon Dec 14 13:00:43 2009
Raid Level : raid5
[Code].....
View 9 Replies
View Related
Nov 2, 2010
I have ubuntu server 10.04 on a server with 2.8ghz 1gb ddr2 with the os on a 2gb cf card attached to the IDE channel and a software raid5 with 4 x 750gb drives. On a samba share using these drives I am only getting around 5 MB/s connected via wireless N at 216mbps and my router and server both having gigabit ports. Is a raid 5 supposed to be that slow? I was seeing speeds of anywhere from 20-50MB/s from other people and am just wondering what i am doing wrong to be so far below that.
View 4 Replies
View Related
Jul 27, 2010
after a failed upgrade from 9.10 to 10.04 I had to format my computer and do a clean install of 10.04, and now my mdadm raid5 array wont start.my array is called "The Library", and i believe the space between "The" and "Library" is causing the command disk utility uses to start the array to fail.The exact error isAn error occurred while performing an operation on "The Library" (RAID-5 Array): The operation failed
Error assembling array: mdadm exited with exit code 1: mdadm: unrecognised word on ARRAY line: Library
mdadm: unrecognised word on ARRAY line: Library
[code]....
View 1 Replies
View Related
May 13, 2011
My fileserver initially had 3 1TB drives in RAID 5 configured with mdadm as /dev/md1. (System root is a mirrored raid on /dev/md0) I went to go add a 4th 1TB drive to /dev/md1 and grow the raid 5 accordingly. I was initially following this guide: [URL] but ran into issues on the 3rd and 4th commands. I've been trying a few things to remedy the issue since, but no luck. The drive seems to have been added to /dev/md1 properly, but I can't get the filesystem to resize to 3TB. I also am not entirely sure how /dev/md1p1 got created, but it appears to be the primary partition on the logical device /dev/md1.
Relevent information:
Code:
fdisk -l /dev/md1
Disk /dev/md1: 3000.6 GB, 3000606523392 bytes
2 heads, 4 sectors/track, 732569952 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 8 * 512 = 4096 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 65536 bytes / 196608 bytes
Disk identifier: 0xda4939fa .....
The filesystem originated as ext3, I believe its showing up as ext2 in some of these results because I disabled the journal when doing some initial troubleshooting. Not sure what the issue is, but I didn't want to blindly perform operations on the filesystem and risk losing my data.
View 9 Replies
View Related
Jul 19, 2011
This is the error message I'm getting when trying to Format the mdadm RAID5 created with 4 drives
Code:
Error creating partition: helper exited with exit code 1: In part_add_partition: device_file=/dev/md1, start=0, size=6001196531712, type=
Entering MS-DOS parser (offset=0, size=6001196531712)
MSDOS_MAGIC found
found partition type 0xee => protective MBR for GPT
Exiting MS-DOS parser
[Code]...
View 3 Replies
View Related
Jun 21, 2011
I've been playing with this for hours, and have been unable to figure it out. I tried to convert my RAID5 array of 4 active disks and 1 spare to a RAID6 with 5 active disks.
I did this:
Code:
mdadm --grow /dev/md4 --raid-devices 5 --level 6
Here is what I have on /dev/md4:
Code:
/dev/sde1 active
/dev/sdg1 active
/dev/sdj1 active
/dev/sdf1 active
removed
/dev/sdh5 spare
code....
but it tells me that /dev/sde is busy, and then that it has a bad superblock (From what I've read, I'm sure the bad superblock is just because of the "busy" message). I've tried this with the -f option, too, with no luck.
View 7 Replies
View Related
Feb 15, 2010
I have a problem with my mdadm RAID. I wanted to know if anyone had any experience with shrinking RAID5 arrays. I was growing the array from 5 to 6 devices however the grow got interrupted and it has recovered to 5 drives. The 6th drive is toast and I am unable to re add it to the system. I would like to drive the device listed as "removed". I have tried mdadm /dev/md0 --remove detached and failed with no success. I am running Ubuntu kernel 2.6.28-11 and mdadm is v3.1.1.
Here is output of a "mdadm -D dev/md0"
/dev/md0:
Version : 0.90
Creation Time : Wed Jan 12 00:46:41 2009
Raid Level : raid5
Array Size : 4883812480 (4657.57 GiB 5001.02 GB)
Used Dev Size : 976762496 (931.51 GiB 1000.20 GB)
Raid Devices : 6
Total Devices : 5
Preferred Minor : 0
Persistence : Superblock is persistent
Update Time : Mon Feb 15 20:25:07 2010
State : active, degraded
Active Devices : 5
Working Devices : 5
Failed Devices : 0
Spare Devices : 0
Layout : left-symmetric
Chunk Size : 64K
UUID : 74fa5199:84b88e81:4ae0fbae:92643084
Events : 0.1331010
Number Major Minor RaidDevice State
0 8 16 0 active sync /dev/sdb
1 8 32 1 active sync /dev/sdc
2 8 48 2 active sync /dev/sdd
3 8 0 3 active sync /dev/sda
4 8 64 4 active sync /dev/sde
5 0 0 5 removed
cat /proc/mdstat
Personalities : [raid6] [raid5] [raid4]
md0 : active raid5 sdb[0] sde[4] sda[3] sdd[2] sdc[1]
4883812480 blocks level 5, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [6/5] [UUUUU_]
unused devices: <none>
View 4 Replies
View Related
Feb 18, 2011
I am getting really frustrated with trying to get my RAID5 working again. I had a RAID5 array built with 4 of the Western Digital 1.5tb "Advanced Format" drives, WD15EARS. However, when copying 1.5gb dvd encoded files to the drive, I was getting speeds of ~2mb/s. When researching how to make this faster, I came across all the posts about the Advanced Format drives and how that was causing a lot of issues for a lot of people. It looked like the solution was simple enough: partition starting at sector 64 or 2048 or whatever and then recreate the RAID. However, this is not working for me.
Here are my computer specs:
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-EP43-DS3L LGA 775 Intel P43 ATX
CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 Wolfdale 3.0GHz 6MB L2 Cache LGA 775 65W
RAM: 4gb DDR2 1066 (PC2 8500)
Video card: ASUS GeForce 9600GT 512MB 256-bit
Linux: 10.04
[Code].....
View 1 Replies
View Related
Jan 25, 2010
I have an old Athlon XP 3000 machine that I keep around as a file server.It's currently got three 1TB drives which I had setup as mdadm raid 5 on FC10. The machine's original drive held the superblock for the raid array and it just had a massive heart attack. I've searched, my biggest source being URL...I can't tell if I can reassemble the superblock info lost with the original hard drive or if I've lost it all...
View 9 Replies
View Related
Feb 2, 2010
Something weird happened last night and my raid5 failed. I am trying to re activate it and see if my data is dead or what. When I run mdadm -Asv /dev/md0 I get
Code:
mdadm: looking for devices for /dev/md0
mdadm: cannot open device /dev/dm-1: Device or resource busy
mdadm: /dev/dm-1 has wrong uuid.
mdadm: cannot open device /dev/dm-0: Device or resource busy
mdadm: /dev/dm-0 has wrong uuid.
mdadm: cannot open device /dev/sde2: Device or resource busy
mdadm: /dev/sde2 has wrong uuid.
mdadm: cannot open device /dev/sde1: Device or resource busy
mdadm: /dev/sde1 has wrong uuid.
mdadm: cannot open device /dev/sde: Device or resource busy
mdadm: /dev/sde has wrong uuid.
mdadm: cannot open device /dev/sdd: Device or resource busy
mdadm: /dev/sdd has wrong uuid.
mdadm: cannot open device /dev/sdc: Device or resource busy
mdadm: /dev/sdc has wrong uuid.
mdadm: cannot open device /dev/sdb: Device or resource busy
mdadm: /dev/sdb has wrong uuid.
mdadm: cannot open device /dev/sda: Device or resource busy
mdadm: /dev/sda has wrong uuid.
View 4 Replies
View Related
Jan 17, 2011
Relatively inexperienced user using Linux/ubuntu. Not too savvy I admit and like to use GUI as much as possible. Not a great fan of the Terminal window... I have installed a couple weeks ago Ubuntu 10.10 (Desktop Edition) using Alternative install disk (don't ask why!) on 4Gb usb stick. Working fine except one thing with the raid array. I have created a raid5 array made of 6 drives using GUI (Disk Utility). After an expansion of the array (or was it a reinstall of the OS, I can't remember exactly?) the array does not autostart anymore. Of course nor does it automount anymore.
THE WEIRD THING is that I can still start it MANUALLY from the "Disk Utility" GUI after two tries. And it works just fine thereafter!!! The first time i try to start it gives an error (something about /dev/md0_127 being not ready or buisy). THE SECOND TRY ALWAYS WORKS like a charm, the array starts and i can mount it just fine. Here is a screenshot: I have also noticed that there is no entry in fstab for /dev/md0 although I can manually mount it using the same Disk Utility GUI. That is strange to me. Is it normal? i could easily add it manually but Ubuntu it won't boot anymore (i tried and failed, hence the reinstall). I tried for two weeks to find a solution browsing on different forums but the problem is beyond my expertise...
BELOW are further details about my configuration mdadm.conf, fstab, fdisk -l result and other info. I don=t want to loose my data but it would be nice to make this thing work and be able to access my fileserver via vnc instead of having to keep it connected to a lcd monitor as now. This is the blkid result:
[Code]...
View 3 Replies
View Related
Mar 12, 2011
I'm trying to find out which one is safer when it comes down to recovery process in case of a drive failure
A RAID5 created in mdadm
or
a Stripe RAID created on pure LVM
the RAID is purely for data storage for a SAMBA server, the OS will reside on its own drive.Ideally the RAID physical hard drives should be re-build on another machine in case of catastrophic server failure (mother board problem, or any other random problems as an example)I can't decide which of the 2 software RAID method is more convenient and safest, don't care about performance, it'll be a dedicated server for mass storage, it's going to mirror other 3 file servers on fakeRAIDs (dmraid), it's simply a redundant backup for the backups
The important goal here is portability.from what've read it appears that LVM might be more portable?but according to some dated (2009) info the mdadm seems to be a bit buggy when it comes to rebuilding the array, yet LVM doesn't appear that safe either which one would you pick for ease to rebuild on catastrophic failures?
View 2 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
Feb 17, 2011
One of the disks in my RAID5 arrays started acting up, giving me some I/O buffer errors and making the RAID stop. disk info
Code:
=== START OF INFORMATION SECTION ===
Device Model: WDC WD10EARS-00Y5B1
Serial Number: WD-WMAV51466805
Firmware Version: 80.00A80
[Code]...
View 9 Replies
View Related
Aug 9, 2010
My computer was getting slow. I know I had a problem with flash for sure. I was thinking it was because I haven't done a dist-upgrade in a while and there were a lot of updates.
So last night I backed up all my important data and did a dist-upgrade. Well now IceWM no longer shows and it just boots to command line. Not the first time I've done that.
Anyway, when I run 'apt-get -f install' I get hung up with errors on Samba.
Errors were encountered : /var/cache/XXX...samba_2%3a3.4.8~dfsg-2_i386.deb
I tried to remove samba but was unable to and 'dpkg -r --force-all samba' returns a processing error.
The error states that it can't locate File/Temp.pm in @INC.
I am sure someone with more knowledge could easily salvage this. Funny, I have been running sid for 5-7 years now and it has given me very few problems. And pretty much every problem has originated from my hand. Typing the wrong thing, accepting the wrong option, or accidentally deleting the wrong folder.
View 2 Replies
View Related
Jan 9, 2010
I have no drive failures but just need to recreate a raid5 set as the next free MD disk number. Originally I built a temp OS of debian on a single drive and had 4x2TB drives in a raid5 software array (MD0) this worked fine and allowed me to move all data to it, and remove our old fileserver. I have now pulled out the 4 x 2TB Raid 5 drives and created a new OS on two new 80GB drives, partioned as follows,
MD0 is now 250mb Raid1 as /boot
MD1 is 4GB Raid1 Swap
MD2 is 76GB Raid1 as /
If I turn off and push back in the 4x2TB drives I cannot see a MD3. I presume I would need to create a MD3 from these 4 drives but I dont want to mess things up as its live data. So im here asking for help, or a bit of hand holding to get it done right.
PS - Its a Debian Lenny 5.0.3 Raid1 fresh install replacing a Debian Lenny 5.0.3 on a single disk.
View 2 Replies
View Related
Nov 22, 2009
Here's a brief description of my system:
120GB Sata HDD - Primary OS drive
3 x 1.0TB Sata HDD - Raid 5 array
This is on a C2D MSI P35 Platinum board. Anyway, did a fresh install of F12 on the 120GB, which I had problems with - Anaconda refused to see the drive. Fedora Live could see it fine, and it was listed as an 'nvidia_raid_member' - no idea why, but I completely erased the disc under the Live CD and proceeded to install F12.
Once F12 was installed, I loaded up mdadm to re-activate my Raid 5 array, using 'sudo mdadm --assemble --uuidthe uuid) - and it started with only 2 of the 3 drives. My /dev/sdb drive did not activate into the array, due to what mdadm said was a mismatched UUID. Ok, so I erased /dev/sdb, intending to rebuild the array. Erased /dev/sdb, and then attempted 'sudo mdadm --add /dev/md0 /dev/sdb' and I get this error: "mdadm: Cannot add disks to a 'member' array, perform this operation on the parent container" - I can find NO information on this error message.
[Code].....
I don't believe the hard drives are connected in the exact same order they were in before - I disconnected everything in the system and blew it out (it was pretty dusty)
View 1 Replies
View Related
May 15, 2011
1 - I got the array up and running on three Seagate 1.5TB HDDs, filled it up in 6 months (mostly by putting all of my stuff in one place)
2 - Unknowingly, I bought a WD15EARS HDD, partitioned it as I would any normal drive and asked mdadm to grow my array over to the new partition
3 - Worried by abysmal read/write speed, I investigated, found out how to deal with the new HDD ( here or here )
4 - Being a newbie at this, I opted to do a trial run before wiping the disk and unmount/mount the partitions, LVM layers, SW RAID array. This is there I messed up.
[Code]...
View 2 Replies
View Related
May 2, 2010
Software RAID 5 on 4 2TB caviar green disks. Then 12 partitions or about 500GB, and finally LVM to use the partitions as pv, and create some vg for my needs.
My disks are /dev/sda to /dev/sdd I boot on /dev/sde which is an sd card
My doing (and at the end, my issue):
Code:
(parted) select /dev/sda
(parted) mklabel
Warning: The existing .... blablabla [msdos] ? gpt
(parted) select /dev/sdb
[Code].....
View 3 Replies
View Related
Feb 27, 2016
I launch a mdadm grow to expand my filesystem but I forget --backup-file.I have my server running and one UPS.
Code: Select allpk25.com:~# mdadm --manage /dev/md0 --add /dev/sde1
mdadm: added /dev/sde1
pk25.com:~# mdadm --grow --raid-devices=5 /dev/md0
mdadm: Need to backup 3072K of critical section..
pk25.com:~# mdadm --grow --raid-devices=5 --backup-file=/root/md0-grow.bak /dev/md0
mdadm: /dev/md0 is performing resync/recovery and cannot be reshaped
[code]....
View 0 Replies
View Related
Oct 13, 2010
I received some errors while running a benchmarking script to determine my ideal raid chunk size. There are several errors in the kernel log regarding the sata link and eventually the two drives i have connected to a pci express x1 sata card were no longer present in /dev/
the script i was using is available here [URL]..system specs 1 500gb western digital drive (system drive)3 2tb samsung f4 drives (2 connected to pci x1 card (sata II) and 1 onto onboard sata port (sata I)) single core amd 64 on SiS chipset debian 64bit testing
[Code]...
I rebooted the machine and everything appears to be happy. What do these errors mean? What steps should i take to prevent them in the future so it doesn't end up corrupting the array?
View 1 Replies
View Related
Jan 11, 2010
I am planning on setting up a 4x1TB RAID5 with mdadm under Ubuntu 9.10. I tried installing mdadm using "sudo apt-get install mdadm", all worked fine except for the following error: Code: Generating array device nodes... /var/lib/dpkg/info/mdadm.postinst: 170: /dev/MAKEDEV: not found failed. The end result is the /dev/md0 device has not been created, as can be seen here:
Code: windsok@beer:~$ mdadm --detail /dev/md0 mdadm: cannot open /dev/md0: No such file or directory After googling, I found the following bug which describes the issue: [URL] However it was reported way back in April 2009, and it does not look like it will be fixed any time soon, so I was wondering if anyone knows a workaround for this bug, to get me up and running?
View 4 Replies
View Related
Dec 26, 2010
I installed mdadm fine and all and proceeded to run:mdadm --create --verbose /dev/md0 --level=stripe --raid-devices=2 /dev/sda /dev/sdbWith sda being my primary hard drive, and sdb being the secondary.I get this error message upon running the command"mdadm: chunk size defaults to 64Kmdadm: Cannot open /dev/sda: Device or resource busymdadm: create aborted"I don't know what's wrong!
mdstat says:
"Personalities : [linear] [raid0] [raid1] [raid10] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [multipath] [faulty]
unused devices: <none>"
View 1 Replies
View Related
Sep 19, 2014
I am running a 14 disk RAID 6 on mdadm behind 2 LSI SAS2008's in JBOD mode (no HW raid) on Debian 7 in BIOS legacy mode.
Grub2 is dropping to a rescue shell complaining that "no such device" exists for "mduuid/b1c40379914e5d18dddb893b4dc5a28f".
Output from mdadm:
Code: Select all  # mdadm -D /dev/md0
  /dev/md0:
      Version : 1.2
   Creation Time : Wed Nov 7 17:06:02 2012
     Raid Level : raid6
     Array Size : 35160446976 (33531.62 GiB 36004.30 GB)
   Used Dev Size : 2930037248 (2794.30 GiB 3000.36 GB)
    Raid Devices : 14
[Code] ....
Output from blkid:
Code: Select all  # blkid
  /dev/md0: UUID="2c61b08d-cb1f-4c2c-8ce0-eaea15af32fb" TYPE="xfs"
  /dev/md/0: UUID="2c61b08d-cb1f-4c2c-8ce0-eaea15af32fb" TYPE="xfs"
  /dev/sdd2: UUID="b1c40379-914e-5d18-dddb-893b4dc5a28f" UUID_SUB="09a00673-c9c1-dc15-b792-f0226016a8a6" LABEL="media:0" TYPE="linux_raid_member"
[Code] ....
The UUID for md0 is `2c61b08d-cb1f-4c2c-8ce0-eaea15af32fb` so I do not understand why grub insists on looking for `b1c40379914e5d18dddb893b4dc5a28f`.
**Here is the output from `bootinfoscript` 0.61. This contains alot of detailed information, and I couldn't find anything wrong with any of it: [URL] .....
During the grub rescue an `ls` shows the member disks and also shows `(md/0)` but if I try an `ls (md/0)` I get an unknown disk error. Trying an `ls` on any member device results in unknown filesystem. The filesystem on the md0 is XFS, and I assume the unknown filesystem is normal if its trying to read an individual disk instead of md0.
I have come close to losing my mind over this, I've tried uninstalling and reinstalling grub numerous times, `update-initramfs -u -k all` numerous times, `update-grub` numerous times, `grub-install` numerous times to all member disks without error, etc.
I even tried manually editing `grub.cfg` to replace all instances of `mduuid/b1c40379914e5d18dddb893b4dc5a28f` with `(md/0)` and then re-install grub, but the exact same error of no such device mduuid/b1c40379914e5d18dddb893b4dc5a28f still happened.
[URL] ....
One thing I noticed is it is only showing half the disks. I am not sure if this matters or is important or not, but one theory would be because there are two LSI cards physically in the machine.
This last screenshot was shown after I specifically altered grub.cfg to replace all instances of `mduuid/b1c40379914e5d18dddb893b4dc5a28f` with `mduuid/2c61b08d-cb1f-4c2c-8ce0-eaea15af32fb` and then re-ran grub-install on all member drives. Where it is getting this old b1c* address I have no clue.
I even tried installing a SATA drive on /dev/sda, outside of the array, and installing grub on it and booting from it. Still, same identical error.
View 14 Replies
View Related
Feb 17, 2016
I received the following error when I got home from work today. If this was a windows environment, my first inclination would be to boot off my dvd and then run a chkdsk on the drive to flag any bad sectors that might exist. But there's a complication for me.
Code: Select allThis message was generated by the smartd daemon running on:
  host name: LinuxDesktop
  DNS domain: [Empty]
The following warning/error was logged by the smartd daemon:
Device: /dev/sdc [SAT], 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors
Device info:
WDC WD5000AAKS-65V0A0, S/N:WD-WCAWF2422464, WWN:5-0014ee-157c5db9a, FW:05.01D05, 500 GB
For details see host's SYSLOG.
You can also use the smartctl utility for further investigation.The original message about this issue was sent at Sun Feb 14 13:43:17 2016 MST.Another message will be sent in 24 hours if the problem persists.
From gnome-disks
Code: Select allDisk is OK, 418 bad sectors (28° C / 82° F)
I did a bit of reading and it seems that most people suggest using badblocks to first get a list of badblocks from the drive and save it to a file. Then use e2fsck to then mark the blocks listed in the badblocks file as bad on the hard drive. My problem here is that this drive is part of a RAID5 array that hosts my OS. I wanted to confirm if this was still the correct process.I boot to my Live Debian disk, stop the raid array if it's active. Then run badblocks + e2fsck commands on the drive in question and then reboot.
View 1 Replies
View Related
Nov 17, 2010
My problem is laptop is always hung what can i do?
View 4 Replies
View Related
