I am trying to create a Raid 1 ram disk. Below are the commands I used:
[root@abidbodal dev]# mke2fs -m 0 /dev/ram8
[root@abidbodal dev]# mount /dev/ram8 /mnt/rd8
[root@abidbodal dev]# mke2fs -m 0 /dev/ram9
[code]....
We have some servers that run in very harsh environments (research vessel) that need to have high-availability.We have software RAID 1 for some measure of resiliency, along with proper data backups (tapes etc), however we would like to be able to break out a new server and re-image it (including RAID setup) from a known good copy if the hardware completely fails on the production box. Simplicity of the process is a big plus.I am interested in any advice on the best way to approach this. My current approach (relatively new to Linux administration, totally new to MDADM) is to use DD to take a complete gzipped copy of one of the RAID'ed devices (from a live CD): ode:
dd if=/dev/sda bs=4096 | gzip -c > /mnt/external/image/test.img then reverse the process on the new PC, finally using Code:mdadm --assemble to re-create and re-build the array.
a server that was running a hardware isw raid on the system (root) disk. This was working just fine until I started getting sector errors on one of the disks. So, I shutdown the system and removed the failing drive and installed a new drive (same size). On reboot I went in to the intel raid setup and it did show the new drive and I was able to set it to rebuild the raid. So, continuing the reboot everything came up just fine except the raid 1 on the system disk. I have tried many times to get the system to rebuild the raid using dmraid, but to no avail it would not start a rebuild. In order to get the system back up and make sure that the disk was duplicated I was able to 'dd' the working disk to the new disk that was installed.At present when I look at the system it does not show up with a raid setup on the system disk ( this comprises the entire 1TB disk with w partitions sda1 as / and sda2 as swap).Problem:I have decided to forego the intel raid and just use mdadm. I have a test system setup to duplicate (not the software, but the disk partitions) the server setup.
Code:
[root@kilchis etc]# fdisk -l
Disk /dev/sda: 1000.2 GB, 1000204886016 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 121601 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
I have a raid5 on 10 disk, 750gb and it have worked fine with grub for a long time with ubuntu 10.04 lts. A couple of days ago I added a disk to the raid, growd it and then resized it.. BUT, I started the resize-process on a terminal on another computer, and after some time my girlfriend powered down that computer!
So the resize process cancelled in the middle and i couldn't acess any of the HDDs so I rebooted the server.
Now the problem, the system is not booting up, simple black with a blinking line. Used a rescue CD to boot it up, finised the resize-process and the raid seems to be working fine so I tried to boot normal again. Same problem. Rescue cd, updated grub, got several errors: error: unsupported RAID version: 0.91. I have tried to purge grub, grub-pc, grub commmon, removed /boot/grub and installed grub again. Same problem.
I have tried to erased mbr (# dd if=/dev/null of=/dev/sdX bs=446 count=1) on sda (ide disk, system), sdb (sata, new raid disk). Same problem. Removed and reinstalled ubuntu 11.04 and is now getting error: no such device: (hdd id). Again tried to reinstall grub on both sda and sdb, no luck. update-grub is still generating error about raid id 0.91 and is back on a blinking line on normal boot. When you'r resizeing a raid MDADM changed the ID from 0.90 to 0.91 to prevent something that happend happened. But since I have completed the resize-process MDADM have indeed changed the ID back to 0.90 on all disks.
I have also tried to follow a howto on a similar problem with a patch on [URL] But I cant compile, various error about dpkg. So my problem is, I cant get grub to work. It just gives me a blinking line and unsupported RAID version: 0.91.
Recently, one the SMART utility said that one of the drives had failed and another drive was about to fail. I downed the box and hooked them up to my windows machine to run sea tools on them (They are all seagate drives). Sea Tools said that the drives were fine, while ubuntu said they were failing/dead. Yesterday I decided to try to fix one of the drives in the raid. I turned the server off, took the failed drive out, and restarted. Of course the raid didn't work because only 2 of the 3 drives were there, however it had been working w/ only 2 of the 3 drives for a couple months now (I'm a lazy college student). I turned it back off and back on with the drive there just to see if I could get the raid up again, but I havn't been able to get it to go. So far I've tried:
Code:
mdadm --assemble /dev/md0 /dev/sd[b,c,d]
mdadm: no recogniseable superblock on /dev/sdb
mdadm: /dev/sdb has no superblock - assembly aborted
[code]....
I'm looking for a way to trick the raid into working with just 2 drives until I can warranty the seagate and buy an external 1.5 TB drive to use as another backup. how to remove the bad drive from the array and replace it with a fresh drive, without data loss.
I have a fileserver which is running Ubuntu Server 6.10. I had a RAID5 array consisting of the following disks:
Code:
/dev/sda1
/dev/sdb1
/dev/sdd1
/dev/md0 -
the raid drive for the above three disks. The sda1 disk has failed and the array is running on 2 of 3 disks
/dev/sdc (OS disk)
/dev/sde (new 2tb disk - unused)
/dev/sdf (new 2tb disk - unused)
My plan was to rebuild the array using the two new disks as RAID1. Would the best way to do this be to create a new RAID1 disk on /dev/md1 then copy all data over from /dev/md0? Also - this may sound stupid but since all 3 drives in md0 are identical i'm not sure physically which disk is bad. I tried disconnecting each disk one-by-one then rebooting but the system doesn't appear to want to boot without the bad drive connected. I've already failed the disk in the array with mdadm but i'm unsure of how to remove it properly.
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.
I have a strange issue with my RAID5 array - it worked fine for a month, a couple days ago it didn't start on boot with mdadm reporting "Input/Output error" - I didn't panic restarted my computer, same error. Then opened a Disk utility and it reported State: Not running, partially assembled - don't know why, I've pressed Stop RAID Array and started it again, voila - it reported State: Running - I've checked components list and there was nothing wrong with it. So I run Check Array utility, waited almost 3 hours to finish it and it worked since than, till today's morning - I've started my computer, and here we go, same error.
See screenshots:
This is an initial state just after computer startup:
This is after I stop and start RAID5:
This is a components list:
I can see nothing wrong there yet not sure why mdadm fails on boot. I do not really like the windows solution I guess, when I check my array again, it will work fine again, but it then can fail in the same way without known reason.
I'm writing a monitoring plugin for a home server RAID, mdadm on Ubuntu 10.4. code...
I'm looking for the possible values of "state" but can't seem to find it anywhere, neither man nor the online documentation I have found seem to have a list.
Does anyone know where to find a list of possible states?
I'm trying to set up a RAID1 partition on my Ubuntu 9.10 workstation.On this dual-boot system, Ubuntu is running from a separate drive (/dev/sdc - an SSD that is quite small, which is why I need more disk space). Besides that, there are two traditional 500 GB hard drives, which have Windows 7 installed (I want to keep the Windows installation intact), and about half of the space unallocated. This space is where I want to set up a single, large RAID1 partition for Linux.
(This, to my understanding, would be software RAID, whereas the Windows partitions are on hardware RAID - I hope this isn't a problem... Edit: See Peter's comment. I guess this shouldn't be a problem since I see both drives separately on Linux.)On both disks, /dev/sda and /dev/sdb, I created, using fdisk, identical new partitions of type "Linux raid autodetect" to fill up the unallocated space.
Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/sda1 1 10 80293+ de Dell Utility
/dev/sda2 * 11 106 768000 7 HPFS/NTFS
[code]....
But so is "Device or resource busy" when trying to create the RAID array. Quite strange.
Update: Could the device mapper have something to do with this? How do /dev/mapper and dmraid relate to all this mdadm stuff anyway? Both provide software RAID, but.. differently? Sorry for my ignorance here. Under /dev/mapper/ there are some device files that, I think, somehow match the 3 Windows RAID partitions (sd{a,b}1 through sd{a,b}3). I don't know why there are four of these arrays though.
$ ls /dev/mapper/
control isw_dgjjcdcegc_ARRAY1 isw_dgjjcdcegc_ARRAY3
isw_dgjjcdcegc_ARRAY isw_dgjjcdcegc_ARRAY2
I'm running a Debian homeserver, with a 3-disk (1GB each) raid 5 array using mdadm (the OS is on a separate disk).Now, smartmontools noticed some bad sectors on one of the disks, and I'm not sure what to do next (except for backup of valuable data).I found some articles on how to fix these sectors, but I'm unaware what the result on the whole array will be.
View 4 Replies View RelatedI have a 4 disk raid 5 array on my Ubuntu 10.10 box. They are /dev/sd[c,d,e,f].Smartctl started notifying me that /dev/sde had some bad sectors and the number of errors was increasing each day. To mitigate this I decided to buy a new drive and replace it.I have an external 4-bay disk enclosure. I failed /dev/sde via mdadm:
Code:
mdadm --manage /dev/md0 --fail /dev/sde
mdadm --manage /dev/md0 --remove /dev/sde
[code]...
I'm building a new desktop computer, on which I plan to install Debian Squeeze. I'll have a 1 TB SATA hard drive in the system. I'm also considering using two 500 GB external USB drives, but I'm debating about how I want to use them. Running them all separately for 2 TB of space could be a nightmare, with three potential points of failure, so I was thinking of using the two external drives as a backup system instead.
I'm considering linking the two external drives in a RAID 0 array, then linking that array and the internal drive in a RAID 1 array. I would use mdadm software RAID for all of this so I could use individual partitions in the arrays, avoid hardware dependency, and have greater software control. So now is this feasible to do (having a partial RAID 0+1 setup)? Moreover, what kind of performance could I expect from using potentially slow external drives (one of which I know has a very long spin-up time after idle periods) in a mirroring setup with the internal drive?Would I be far better off using a filesystem backup daemon instead?
EDIT:After some more research and brainstorming, I've decided I might just end up using rsync+cron, lsyncd, or DRBD (assuming it can easily make backups locally). I'd probably have to link up the external drives in RAID 0 (or use some filesystem link trickery). But I suppose such a setup would offer greater control, flexibility in disk capacities (the full system isn't so strictly limited to the capacity of the smallest member of the array), and granularity than RAID 0+1 would.I'm still open to thoughts on the mdadm RAID 0+1 solution, but does anyone have any advice on choosing backup software? For some background on my needs, I'll be using this computer as both an everyday desktop and a personal LAMP server (MySQL database files would be included in the backups).
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)
I just tried creating a raid Device which has both stripping and mirroring i have done as below Quote:
mdadm -C /dev/md00 -l1 -n2 /dev/sda7 /dev/sda8
mdadm -C /dev/md01 -l1 -n2 /dev/sda9 /dev/sda10
mdadm -C /dev/md02 -l0 -n2 /dev/md00 /dev/md01
pvcreate /dev/md02
vgcreate volgroup02 /dev/md02
lvcreate -n orac -L 9G volgroup02
[Code]...
Everything is fine until here but after reboot the device wont mount on /orac it says special device not available i found that that md02 device is not in active state
i tried deleting it and recreating it but no use still it wont persist a reboot
I have created software raid 5 configurations on the second harddrive its working fine and i have edited fstab file for auto mounting when it reboot but when i reboot the computer raid doesn't work i have to re-create the arrays by typing "mdadm --create" command again and mount again manually ,is there anywhere i can do this once without retyping the commands again after rebooting and i am also using redhat 5
View 1 Replies View RelatedI have 4 WD10EARS drives running in a RAID 5 array using MDADM.Yesterday my OS Drive failed. I have replaced this and installed a fresh copy of Ubuntu 11.04 on it.I then installed MDADM, and rebooted the machine, hoping that it would automatically rebuild the array.It hasnt, when i look at the array using Disk Utility, it says that the array is not running. If i try to start the array it says : Error assembling array: mdadm exited with exit code 1: mdadm: failed to RUN_ARRAY /dev/md0: Input/output errormdadm: Notenough devices to start the array.I have tried MDADM --assemble --scan and it gives this output:mdadm: /dev/md0 assembled from 2 drives - not enough to start the array.I know that there are 4 drives present as they are all showing, but it is only using 2 of them.I also ran MDADM -- detail /dev.md0 which gave:
root@warren-P5K-E:~# mdadm --detail /dev/md0
/dev/md0:
Version : 0.90
[code]....
I have done lots of searching and I haven't been able to find anyone else with the same problem. Whenever I create a RAID with 'mdadm', regardless of level (I've done linear, 0, and 5) the command I use is:
Code:
mdadm --create --run --verbose /dev/md0 --raid-devices=11 --spare-devices=1 --chunk=256 --level=5 /dev/sd[abcdefghijkl]1
The RAID is build RAID 5 as it should be. However, when I check /proc/partitions it shows under "md3".
[Code]...
I have a previously defined RAID5 (4 disks). This worked in Ubuntu 8.04.. I recently moved to CentOS5.. and I cannot seen to get the drive back online.cat /proc/mdstat shows, no raid levels (personalities).. and no drives listed.mdadm --detail -scan returns nothing.mdadm --QE returned a UUID string.. and the ARRAY output.I can mdadm --examine all the members of the original array.I am not versed in mdadm enough to really understand what I can run and should not run that would erase the data on the drives. Please assist.. I will try to post exact output of commands.. but the system is kind of unreachable and being rebuilt... i just want to ensure my data on the array is not lost
View 7 Replies View RelatedMy only goal is to have a raid-5 that auto-assembles and auto-mounts. Hardware: 4*2TB sata (raid disks), 1*500GB IDE (OS disk), 1*DVD IDE all plugged direct into the motherboard (nForce 750i SLI).
Starting partitions on the raid disks: gpt ext4 The problem occurs when I restart my comp after building it for the first time. I am able to see it assemble, I am able to partition it, I even mounted it Once.This is the second time I've built it so I have watched everything that happened. I don't know if this has anything to do with my problem, but when I created the raid my drive designations were: sda - 500GB(OS), sd[bcde] - 2TB(raid). When I restarted: sd[abcd] - 2TB(raid), sde - 500GB(OS).
[Code]...
I HAD a fedora 11 server with md RAID 1 across two 1TB SATA drives. The md0 space was set up to be an LVM PV and the single LVM VG was carved up into 5 or 6 LVs. The MB on this system died and I wound up buying a new one.
Now I want to recover the data from the RAID1 setup on the new server. However, when I attach the two 1TB drives to a new fedora 13 setup, mdadm is only able to find one of the two drives. The partition on the second drive shows "busy" during an mdadm -A -s -v to scan for md volumes.
Well, one drive should be enough since this is RAID1, right? Well, when I do a pvscan -v, the other drive shows up as a "NEW" pv not allocated to a VG. In addition, vgscan does print "Invalid metadata header checksum" when it runs but it doesn't point at any particular PV. I'm afraid to go any further with LVM since I can't afford to lose the data on this system. It is backed up offsite, but the restore will take several days and I can't afford to be down that long.
Are there any tools or techniques where I can dig deeper into what each drive, in the RAID1 pair, has right and wrong with it and pick one that I can force into a usable VG so that I can recover the data?
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]....
Got a little problem after the install of Fedora 12. First there was not problem in opening the raid-device, after i tryed to automount it with crypttab and fstab im not longer able to open it.
Here some outputs code...
I just had a whole 2TB Software RAID 5 blow up on me. I rebooted my server, which i hardly ever do and low and behold i loose one of my raid 5 sets. It seems like two of the disks are not showing up properly.. What i mean by that is the OS picks up the disks, but it doesnt see the partitions.
I ran smartct -l on all the drives in question and they're all in good working order.
Is there some sort of repair tool i can use to scan the busted drives (since they're available) to fix any possible errors that might be present.
Here is what the "good" drive looks like when i use sfdisk:
Quote:
sudo sfdisk -l /dev/sda
Disk /dev/sda: 121601 cylinders, 255 heads, 63 sectors/track
Units = cylinders of 8225280 bytes, blocks of 1024 bytes, counting from 0
Device Boot Start End #cyls #blocks Id System
/dev/sda1 0+ 121600 121601- 976760001 83 Linux
/dev/sda2 0 - 0 0 0 Empty
[Code]....
Can I use UUIDs to setup a raid with mdadm?
View 3 Replies View RelatedMy home-backup server, with 8*2TB disks won't boot anymore. Two disks failed at the same time and i rebuilt the raid 6 array without any problem, but now i can't boot the os. I'm using ubuntu server, 10.10. I've made screens of the displays to don't copy everything here. The problem at the boot:
And the Grub config: It's not a production server, but i would like to have it online. I've tried for the lasts 2 days (just a couple hours a day) but without success. I was suggested to do "mount -o remount,rw /" and than edit /etc/fstab, but it get the file don't exist error.
I'm having trouble with Ubuntu 10.10 and stable device names. When I installed Ubuntu, the root drive was the only one in the machine; it obviously got /dev/sda.
After the base installation, I installed three additional 2TB drives to make RAID-5 array. Ubuntu renamed the root drive to /dev/sdd. While annoying I lived with it.
After creating a single partition set to "Linux raid autodetect" on each drive, I created the RAID-5 array:
Code:
All was going well until a reboot. When rebooting Ubuntu decided to make the root drive /dev/sda this time and now mdadm --detail /dev/md0 reports:
Code:
How to fix the array and make the device names stable?
I have been having some odd issues over the last day or so while trying to get a raid 5 array running in software under Kubuntu. I installed 3 1TB drives and started up, my sd* order got all messed up( sda was now sdc and so on). This wasn't entirely unexpected, so I fixed up fstab and booted again. I found all three of the drives I installed, set them to raid auto-detect and used mdadm to create /dev/md0. I then created mdadm.conf by piping the output of mdadm --detail --scan --verbose into /etc/mdadm.conf.At this point, everything was still going swimmingly. I copied over a few hundred GB of data from another failing drive and everything seemed ok. I went to reboot once the copy was done and everything just went weird. All of the sd* drives went back to the original. Of course, this meant that the mdadm.conf was wrong. I tried to just change the device list, but that didn't work. I then deleted mdadm.conf and rebooted. The drive list stayed in the original order this time, so I just tried manually starting the array.
By erasing the partition table of the 3rd drive, I've been able to get it to the status of spare, but it says it is busy when I try to add it to the array. A grep through dmesg makes me think that md has a lock on it. I'm not sure where to go with it now. If anyone has any pointers, I would like to hear them.
Device List(original):
/dev/sda => boot drive, /home /
/dev/sdb => 1.5TB media storage, failing
[code]...
I have an Linksys NSLU2 with four usb harddrives attached to it. One is for the os, the other three are setup as a RAID5 array. Yes, I know the raid will be slow, but the server is only for storage and will realistically get accessed once or twice a week at the most. I want the drives to spin down but mdadm is doing something in the background to access them. An lsof on the raid device returns nothing at all. The drive are blinking non-stop and never spin down until I stop the raid. Then they all spin down nicely after the appropriate time.
They are Western Digital My Book Essentials and will spin down by themselves if there is no access. What can I shutdown in mdadm to get it to stop continually accessing the drives? Is it the sync mechanism in the software raid that is doing this? I tried setting the monitor to --scan -1 to get to check the device just once, but to no avail. I even went back and formatted the raid with ext2 thinking maybe the journaling had something to do with it. There are no files on the raid device, it's empty.
mdadm --create /dev/md1 --level=1 --raid-disks=2 missing /dev/sdb1and I getmd1: raid array is not clean -- starting background reconstructionWhy is it not clean?Should I be worried?The HD is not new it has been used in before in a raid array but has beenrepartitionated.
View 2 Replies View Related