General :: Mdadm - RAID5 To RAID6, Spare Won't Become Active
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Jul 26, 2011
I am currently having problems with my RAID partition. First two disks were having trouble (sde, sdf). Through smartctl I noticed there were some bad blocks, so first I set them to fail, and readded them so that the RAID array will overwrite these. Since that didn't work, I went ahead and replaced the disks. The recovery process was slow and I left things running overnight. This morning I find out that another disk (sdb) has failed. Strangely enough the array has not become inactive.
md3 : active raid6 sdf1[15](S) sde1[16](S) sdak1[10] sdj1[8] sdk1[9] sdb1[17](F) sdan1[13] sdd1[2] sdc1[1] sdg1[5] sdi1[7] sdal1[11] sdam1[12] sdao1[14] sdh1[6]
25395655168 blocks level 6, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [15/12] [_UU__UUUUUUUUUU]
Does anyone have any recommendations as the steps to take ahead with regards to recovery/fixing the problem? The disk is basically full so I haven't written anything to disk in the interim of this problem.
View 2 Replies
View Related
Jan 13, 2011
I have a little nice Ubuntu server with 6x 1TB drives assebmbled into a RAID5 array. Recently SATA cable of one of the drives failed. So I ordered a new cable and ran the server in degraded mode for a few days. Like this:
Code:
/dev/md0:
Version : 00.90
Creation Time : Sat Sep 19 10:39:11 2009
Raid Level : raid5
Array Size : 4883812480 (4657.57 GiB 5001.02 GB)
code....
I'd like the 6th drive to be active, not spare, like before. Should I just wait for rebuild to be finished (it can easily take over 1 day)? Or should I add it somehow differently to be active immediately?
I'm not sure, but I think as I simulated failures unplugging one of the disk, after plugging it in again, the "failed" drive was active again and rebuilding was started as well of course. But it was 2 years ago, so...
The array works just fine for now - I can access files, etc. But I suspect, that in this state if another cable or drive fails, it won't survive anymore. Even after rebuilding is finished, but the 6th drive stays is still marked as "spare". Right?
View 4 Replies
View Related
Aug 7, 2011
I'm convinced that mdadm is going to be the death of me. I've wasted numerous hours on this so far without luck.
OpenSuse 11.4 on an old Supermicro box, creating a software RAID1 array across 2 x IDE 500GB disks. Creating /dev/md0 as a 250MB partition across /dev/sda1 and /dev/sdd1 for /boot, another 465GB partition across /dev/sda2 and /dev/sdd2 as an LVM partition to hold volumes for the various other OS filesystems. After the initial installation and configuration there were a series of mishaps with faulty IDE cables that had drives failing to show up at boot. Somehow, /dev/sdd2 got configured to array /dev/md1 as a spare drive. And nothing I've done so far gets it to show up as an active drive.
The obvious step of failing the partition, removing it, then adding (or re-adding) will bring it back as a spare. I've tried roughly a dozen different permutations of those same steps. The latest was to 'dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdd2' to clear the partition. Thought this might be the trick - after the zero, mdadm -E /dev/sdd2 reported 'no superblock' and no md1 configuration.
So 'mdadm --add /dev/md1 /dev/sdd2' and it still comes back as a spare. Here is mdadm -D /dev/md1
/dev/md1:
Version : 1.0
Creation Time : Sat Jul 9 10:26:01 2011
Raid Level : raid1
Array Size : 488119160 (465.51 GiB 499.83 GB)
code....
I can't stop this array, the OS is running from there. I can't easily boot from CD to repair, all IDE ports have disks attached.
Does anyone have an incantation to promote a spare to active?
View 2 Replies
View Related
Apr 1, 2011
As per [URL] I built a RAID6 array. yay. In the end it completed.
Code:
fermulator@fermmy-server:~$ cat /proc/mdstat
Personalities : [linear] [multipath] [raid0] [raid1] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [raid10]
md2000 : active raid6 sdo1[3] sdn1[2] sdm1[1] sdl1[0]
3907026944 blocks level 6, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [4/4] [UUUU]
To test stability, I rebooted the system, but on reboot, the array wasn't assembled correctly. Basically it had one device in "md_d2000", as a spare. So I stopped that device with
Code:
sudo mdadm --stop /dev/md_d2000
The superblocks looked good ...
Code:
fermulator@fermmy-server:~$ sudo mdadm -E /dev/sd[lmno]
/dev/sdl:
Magic : a92b4efc
Version : 00.90.00
[code]...
I don't have any important data on the array yet ... so I zero'd the superblocks on all devices, deleted the partitions, and started over .. here I go again:
Code:
md2000 : active raid6 sdo1[3] sdn1[2] sdm1[1] sdl1[0]
3907026944 blocks level 6, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [4/4] [UUUU]
[>....................] resync = 0.7% (14164844/1953513472) finish=313.7min speed=102999K/sec
View 4 Replies
View Related
Feb 14, 2009
Note: This how-to assumes you are using LVM on top of the RAID5
Example scenario:
VG0 <-> md0 = RAID5(3x500GB) = sda1, sdb1, sdc1
Volume Group VG0 is made up of a single Physical Volume (md0), which is made up of 3x500GB hard drives in
[code]....
View 1 Replies
View Related
May 30, 2011
I am running lucid and have a 4+1(spare) RAID5 array made up of 1TB disks. I upgraded my mdadm to version 3.1.4 and then performed the following operation:
$sudo mdadm --grow /dev/md3 --level=6 --read-device=5 --backup-file=/var/lib/mysql/md3backup
I have a 500GB drive mounted at /var/lib/mysql which is mostly empty and not part of any RAID array.The reshaping started and everything looked OK. The access lights on the 5 drives were all coming on at the same time on a regular basis. The status from /proc/mdstat showed the array being reshaped to RAID6, albeit slowly. The status showed an average speed of 4000KB and an estimated completion time of 4000 minutes. This all seemed reasonable. This was performed in late afternoon.
The next morning I checked the status and the average speed was down to 300->400KB and the estimated time to complete was 40,000 minutes. When I look at the drive lights, I have one drive whose access light is on solid and the other four drives come on intermittently. Running iotop doesn't show anything useful. mdadm and kjournal show up occasionally. The same is true for top (running on an i5 2500K Intel processor). Here is the output of cat /proc/mdstat:
Personalities : [linear] [multipath] [raid0] [raid1] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [raid10]
md2 : active raid1 sde3[4](S) sda3[3] sdc3[1] sdd3[2] sdb3[0]
987904 blocks [4/4] [UUUU]
[code]....
My biggest concern is keeping this system running for 20+ days without any hiccups.
View 1 Replies
View Related
Jul 18, 2011
Code:
$cat /proc/mdstat
Personalities : [linear] [multipath] [raid0] [raid1] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [raid10]
[code]....
1/4 of my drives died after about 3 years of usage. I replaced it with an identical drive and did a mdadm -add to re-add it to the array. I expected this to take quite a long time, but not more than 1 million minutes to complete!
View 5 Replies
View Related
Jun 30, 2011
I know you can fail and then remove a drive from a RAID5 array. This leaves the array in a degraded state.
How can you remove a drive and convert the array to just a regular, clean array?
View 9 Replies
View Related
Oct 14, 2010
I'm having issue with raid6. I already created a thread in the "Linux -General" forum, but it seems, there is no right audience
[URL]
View 1 Replies
View Related
Jun 14, 2011
I cant seem to get my RAID 5 (consisting of 8 1tb hard drives) assembled for some reason and I have no idea why and cant find any solutions online. Ill go ahead and show what my problem is:
here is all my hard drives:
Code:
server:~$ 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
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
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
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
Jun 9, 2011
so I setup a raid ten system and I was wondering what that difference between the active and spare drives is ? if I have 4 active drives then 2 the two stripes are then mirrored right?
root@wolfden:~# cat /proc/mdstat
Personalities : [raid0] [raid10]
md1 : active raid10 sda2[0] sdd2[3] sdc2[2] sdb2[1]
[code]....
View 2 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
Feb 1, 2011
Could any RAID gurus kindly assist me on the following RAID-5 issue?I have an mdadm-created RAID5 array consisting of 4 discs. One of the discs was dropping out, so I decided to replace it. Somehow, this went terribly wrong and I succeeded in marking two of the drives as faulty, and the re-adding them as spare.
Now the array is (logically) no longer able to start:
mdadm: Not enough devices to start the array.Degraded and can't create RAID ,auto stop RAID [md1]
I was able to examine the disks though:
Code:
root@127.0.0.1:/etc# mdadm --examine /dev/sdb2
/dev/sdb2:
Magic : a92b4efc
Version : 00.90.00
code....
Code:
mdadm --create --assume-clean --level=5 --raid-devices=4 /dev/sda2 /dev/sdb2 /dev/sdc2 /dev/sdd2
As I don't want to ruin the maybe small chance I have left to rescue my data, I would like to hear the input of this wise community.
View 4 Replies
View Related
Aug 4, 2010
I want to build a 6xSATA RAID 5 system with on of the disks as spare disk. I think this give me a chance of 2 of 6 disks failing without losing data. I am right?
Hardware: Intel ICH10R
First I will creat a 3xSATA RAID 5, after I will add the spare disk and after that I will add the others disks. This is what I think I should do.
Step 1:
Create RAID Device
Code:
mdadm --create --verbose /dev/md0 --metadata 1.2 --level=5 --raid-devices=3 /dev/sda1 /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdc1
I read that "--metadata 1.2" is the best option. It is true?
Create filesystem on the RAID device
Using this method of calculation:
* chunk size = 128kB (for RAID 5)
* block size = 4kB (recommended for large files, and most of time)
* stride = chunk / block = 128kB / 4k = 32kB
* stripe-width = stride * ( (n disks in raid5) - 1 ) = 32kB * ( (5)- 1 ) = 32kB * 4 = 128kb
Then:
Code:
mkfs.ext3 -v -m .1 -b 4096 -E stride=32,stripe-width=128 /dev/md0
Step 2:
Add spare-disk
Code:
mdadm --add /dev/md0 /dev/sdd1
Is this enough?
Step 3:
Adding disks:
Code:
mdadm --add /dev/md0 /dev/sde1
mdadm --grow /dev/md0 --raid-devices=4
fsck.ext3 /dev/md0
resize2fs /dev/md0
View 1 Replies
View Related
Jan 17, 2010
I have a spare machine that has windows XP installed on it and pretty much sits there doing nothing. Both myself and my GF have laptops that we use as our primary machines so I figured I'd just use the spare machine as a file and print share.
Now, I know that I can simply keep XP on there and enable what I need, but Im wondering if I might be better of wiping the thing and installing a linux based os instead.
There's no real reason for me to do this (except that I want to play with linux) so I guess my questions are, is there any point in me doing this? If so what can I do with this machine other than filesharing and what do you reccomend as a fairly light linux installation? Also what else could I use this spare machine for?
View 6 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