Server :: Recreate A Raid5 MD0 Into A Raid5 MD3?
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
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
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
Oct 29, 2010
I've had software RAID 5 arrays for a while now, so they were set up before a RAID array could be partitioned. I had two separate RAID 5 arrays on the same set of drives. One was for / and the other for /home. I moved the / to an SSD and figured I'd expand the other RAID array by failing a drive, repartitioning it then adding it back in. After repeating for the remaining drives, I could then expand the RAID array to use the full size of the drives.
Partway through the second drive being added back in, the RAID array stopped with a kernel error. The drive I was adding and another drive both showed as failed. I couldn't restart the array so I copied the failed drive (Seagate's SeaTools did show it as faulty, but without SMART being tripped) to a new one and tried again. dd_rescue reported the drive copied correctly but I still couldn't restart the array.
So I tried the old standby of recreating the array. This allows me to start it but the ext3 file system won't mount. So I then tried my script (listed in another thread) to try every combination of drives to assemble the array and mount the file system. Still no luck.
View 2 Replies
View Related
Jun 8, 2010
I broke down and spent some $$ on a new server for home use. I mostly do technical research and testing, plus store movies and music. My interests are mainly in the IET iscsitarget performance.
Server system consists of an AMD Phenom II 550, 8GB RAM, 1x 80GB system partition, and a LVM-vg0 software raid5, running Ubuntu 10.04 server x64.
The vg0 consists of 3 x 500GB 7200RPM SATA drives (mdadm) sliced up with 100GB for VBox VMs, one slice is an iscsitarget for a Windows 2k3 server, and another slice iscsitarget for a desktop.
With this setup, the win2k3 server is booted from a .vdi image stored on the ext4 lvm raid5 vg0. Here are the DiskTT stats.
Code:
However, with the Win2k3 server and the MS iscsi initiator I get using DiskTT:
Code:
The speeds are incredibly slow considering a non iscsi connection is screaming fast in comparison. Any ideas?
All nics are 1GB.
Here is my ietd.conf
Code:
View 1 Replies
View Related
Mar 26, 2010
So here it is, I have a fileserver setup on Ubuntu Server 9.10 AMD64. In this system is 4 1.5TB SATAII drives. They are configured in RAID5 using MD. Now everything is working beautify, except when you need to create a directory. When you do, the system hangs for about 30 seconds. The I/O wait in top jumps up as well. Then the directory is created and everything works once again.
The odd part is it is only Directory creation that does this. I can copy, move, download and stream files off the server perfectly. I am baffeled as to what is causing it. It might be related to the fact that I expanded the array from 3 to 4 drives, it was after that, that I first noticed the problem.
View 2 Replies
View Related
Mar 10, 2010
For the troubleshooting of one server (having 73Gb 3HDD, Raid5 of 140Gb). When I check in the Array The Logical Vol Appears as One HDD not Online
0 HDD1
1 HDD2
2 HDD3
0 HDD not showing Online, When we set it for Oneline & save, After restarting it will go off.
View 1 Replies
View Related
Aug 11, 2010
how to recover A mounted RAID5 data???
View 5 Replies
View Related
Jul 20, 2010
I've got a new Ubuntu 10.04 server install with a new 3 disk RAID 5. The boot disk is separate, not part of the RAID. I was trying to practice what I would do if a disk died to recover the RAID, so I unplugged one of the three disks. The machine now just hangs on startup. It shows fsck at the top of the screen but doesn't got anywhere from there. If you press a key it shows the Ubuntu splash screen. If I plug the disk back in, everything boots up normally. So, my question is, how do I get the machine to boot with one of the RAID members missing? I know I can recover it using the Live CD, but it would be nice to be able to get back into the machine without the CD.
View 9 Replies
View Related
Dec 5, 2010
I'm a light linux user over the last couple of years and I decided to built a HTPC/NAS device.
Setup:
40gb ide -> usb boot drive
3x2tb sata (4k Sector) drives
I've got another 2tb identical drive but it's holding data that is going to be copied to the raid after it's up and running and then be 'grown' into the raid array to yield a final 5+tb array. I tried doing a disk util raid array and it ended up failing after reboot due to it using the /dev/sd* designations and they swapped. I have no idea how to do the UUID version, my googlefu and practical guide to ubuntu. So I decided to do it manually in order to also fix the sector issue as disk util wasn't formatting them correctly and once formatted wouldn't let me create a raid array from the discs.
[Code]....
View 9 Replies
View Related
Jun 8, 2010
I have a 2-quad core Intel Xeon system that I have set to RAID-5. I then attempted to install Ubuntu Server. When the message came up about enabling SATA RAID, I said NO because I have hardware RAID installed on the box. So I completed the install, and when I go to view the RAID configuration using the Intel Matrix Storage Manager during boot, it says:Volume0, Level: RAID5(Parity), Status: DegradedWhen I install enabling SATA RAID, I get a message asking me to "configure iSCSI volumes". When I click on that, I get another message: Loginto iSCSI targets. When I click on that I get another message: "Enter an IP address to scan for iSCSI targets". I have no idea what to put as thye iSCSI target portal address!
View 5 Replies
View Related
Oct 6, 2009
is there a way to set-up a file system, where you have multiple nodes (PC's) linked to one storage pool? ZFS seems to support this idea with multiple disks on one node, but could you connect multiple nodes in this manner?
View 3 Replies
View Related
Jun 17, 2011
I am currently looking for a file system that needs to be distributed over several nodes and need redundancy, like RAID5, and the ability to grow if needed, like LVM. Also not all nodes are going to be located in the same data center, but I guess that's not that important as long as the connection between DCs is sufficiently fast. I am currently looking at AFS, Coda, GFS and OCFS to see if they have what I need.
Edit: I just figured that it may be better to have the RAID5-like setup within one location, and have RAID1-like mirroring between the locations. That would probably better for performance, right?
View 2 Replies
View Related
Mar 23, 2010
I am setting up a new server and am in the midst of testing RAID. This is an Ubuntu 9.10 server. RAID1 (/dev/md1) is spread across 12 one-terabyte SCSI disks (/dev/sdi through /dev/sdt). It has four spares configured, each of which are also one-terabyte SCSI drives (/dev/sdu through /dev/sdx). I have been following the instructions on the Linux RAID Wiki ([URL]....
I have already tested the RAID successfully by using mdadm to set a drive faulty. Automatic failover to spare and reconstruction worked like a champ. I am now testing "Force fail by hardware". Specifically, I am following the advice, "Take the system down, unplug the disk, and boot it up again." Well, I did that, and the RAID fails to start. It outright refuses to start. It doesn't seem to notice that a drive is missing. Notably, all the drive letters shift up to fill in the space left by removing a drive. The test I did was to:
[code]....
Is removing a disk from the bus a reasonable test in the first place? Meaning, is this likely to happen in a production environment by other means than a human coming by and yanking out the drive? Meaning, is there a hardware failure that would replicate this event? Because, if so, then I don't know how to recover from it.
View 1 Replies
View Related
Jul 5, 2011
I have an Acer Altos EasyStore SATA NAS box that hung, the only way to reboot was to crash the system (unplug it). Upon reboot it was not recognising the hard drives (it wanted to do a destructive reinitialize). Most of the importent data was backed up, however some was overlooked and we'd quite like to get it back. Removing the disks and placing them in a PC with enough SATA bays to cope, and booting with a live linux distribution (System Rescue CD) I can see the 4 drives are not suffering hardware error and that the original partions exist. Using mdadm I can assemble the Arrays without error (seems to be three but the only one I am concerned with is the RAID5 array of about 3TB). /dev/m1p2 mounts as a loopdevice once an offset is entered. In turn this mounts as an XFS parition. However despite df showing the partition almost to be full. ls -l or ls -a on the mount point shows it to be empty!
I got thusfar using a translation from a German language forum, unfortunately I only speak a little German, and the only other English language post on a simlilar matter I found within that site had no replies. The next step was to unmount loop, then run xfs_chack and xfs_repair on the file system. xfs_check returns that there is are a few dir size and offset errors along with link count mismatches. This I would presume normal for a file system that has become slightly corrupted. xfs_repair (version 3.0.3) gets as far as Phase 3 it finds and corrects zerolength entries, offsets on directories and bogus inode numbers. However the final two lines are:
Code:
realloc failed in blkent_append (2671166480 bytes)
zsh: segmentation fault xfs_repair /dev/loop1
A search on the error missing out data size just returns code to generate it, is anybody able to explain what it means? Also remounting hard drive, ls and varients of still do not return anything. Am I missing some thing (root I am logged in with now would have different credentials presumably to root on the NAS box, so how do I get around this)?
View 5 Replies
View Related
Jun 7, 2011
I recently upgraded a server from Fedora 6 to Fedora 14. In addition to the main hard drive where the OS is installed, I have 3 1TB hard drives configured for RAID5 (via software). After the upgrade, I noticed one of the hard drives had been removed from the raid array. I tried to add it back with mdadm --add, but it just put it in as a spare. I figured I'd get back to it later.Then, when performing a reboot, the system could not mount the raid array at all. I removed it from the fstab so I could boot the system, and now I'm trying to get the raid array back up.
I ran the following:mdadm --create /dev/md0 --assume-clean --level=5 --chunk=64 --raid-devices=3 missing /dev/sdc1 /dev/sdd1I know my chunk size is 64k, and "missing" is for the drive that got kicked out of the array (/dev/sdb1).That seemed to work, and mdadm reports that the array is running "clean, degraded" with the missing drive.However, I can't mount the raid array. When I try:mount -t ext3 /dev/md0 /mnt/fooI get:
mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/md0,
missing codepage or helper program, or other error
In some cases useful info is found in syslog - try
[code]....
View 1 Replies
View Related
Feb 14, 2010
I have a rack of four 1TB drives all partitioned identically with three primary partitions. On each drive
- the first partition is only 64MB;
- the second is a large 900GB partition and
- the last holds all the remaining space
mdadm has been used to set up
/dev/md0 - RAID1, comprised of /dev/sda1 and /dev/sdb1
/dev/md1 - RAID5, comprised of /dev/sda2, /dev/sdb2, /dev/sdc2, /dev/sdd2
/dev/md2 - RAID5, comprised of /dev/sda3, /dev/sdb3, /dev/sdc3, /dev/sdd3
OK, so it was a silly mistake to make - but I am now need to increase the size of /dev/md0. My thinking is to reduce the size of md1 so that I can grow md0.
On md1 I have two logical volumes. I've successfully reduced the size of the volume so that I can reduce the size of md1. Now I'm at the nervous stage; I can find little written on the topic of shrinking RAID5 arrays - and even if I do this I'm unsure if I can move partitions around to regain the space I so desire.
View 1 Replies
View Related
May 23, 2011
I have created a 9TB raid from 4 1.5TB drives and 3 2TB drives (1.6 and .4 partition). I thought it would be a 9TB partition, and Ubuntu says it is a 9TB partition except when looking at what drive space is left.Nautilus' Properties and System Monitor both say that the raid is 4.1TB with 1TB free but Disk Utility and Nautilus say it is a 9TB RAID. very odd. I have tried checking the raid and the xfs file system. no errors.here is from watch cat /proc/mdstat
Code:
md1 : active raid5 sdg1[5] sdf1[6] sde1[4] sda[0] sdd[3] sdb[2] sdc[1]
8790830976 blocks level 5, 4k chunk, algorithm 2 [7/7] [UUUUUUU]
[code]....
View 9 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
Feb 22, 2011
I have a huge problem with my file server (OpenSuse 11.3 - 64bit, kernel-2.6.34.7-0.7-default). I've just installed an Intel SASUC8I card, connected 3 of the 7 Samsung 2TB drives I have to it and after about one hour, it dropped 2 of the disks. I've managed to trace the problem to the card BIOS, which I've replaced with the non-raid edition, so it should now work fine with the kernel raid now. The problem is that I can't find a way to "un-fail" these 2 disks. I'm more than positive, that these drives are just fine, only the controller was misbehaving. The dropout also couldn't have created any data inconsistency either, since the 2 drives dropped out virtually at the same time and there was no writing being done at the time. I've tried add/re-add, I get either mdadm: cannot get array info for /dev/md0 or mdadm: add new device failed for /dev/sdi1 as 7:
Invalid argument (depending on the raid being run or being stopped, in either case, mdstat reports it to be inactive)
For a normal or forced assemble, I get mdadm: /dev/md0 assembled from 5 drives and 1 spare - not enough to start the array.I've been googleing like crazy, also trying to get info from mdadm's help and man, but nothing seems to deal with such a freak accident. An other interesting thing is, that if I reboot the system, mdstat shows md0 as inactive, but lists all the devices with no flags. It's only after a run command, that it changes to the 5 remaining devices, all with (S) flags. Alternatively: does anyone know where device failure info is stored? If I could in some way remove this information from the system (even by reinstalling the OS), I should be able to reassemble the array... Or is it stored in the member drive super-blocks? About 80% of this array's data is backed up, so if all else fails, I can restore most of its content, but I'd much prefer to reassemble this one as a whole, since there was absolutely no chance of data corruption.
View 1 Replies
View Related
Apr 15, 2010
Here is what I have and what I want to do.
3 new 1.5TB HD. 1 used 1.5TB hd with 980MB of data. I want to set up a raid 5 with a hot spare. I have music, pictures, videos, and movies (About 2.8TB worth). I have had a mismatch of drives previously, 250GB, 2 320GB, 500GB, 2 1TB and now a 1.5TB all with data. I have removed the one 250 and 2 320s and put the data on the 1.5TB that is currently installed.
What I would like to do is create a raid5 with the three new 1.5TB HD's, copy the data over from the currently installed 1.5TB and then grow or add that drive as a hot spare. Or just add it and then add another 1.5TB down the road as a hot spare don't know for sure.
In addition since I have 2 1 TB drives, I could add 2 more (Good deals on 1 TB drives right now) and have a total of 4 1TB drives. Could I have 2 raid5's (4-1TB's and 4-1.5TB's)in two separate arrays? I really do not know if that makes sense or not but here comes LVM. I am tired of managing my HD space and since i have multiple folders (Movies, music, pictures, videos) and within the movies folder I have R, G & PG folders for the ratings of the movies. (Pwd protect the R so the kids can't get to it) So with LVM installed with the Raid5 I should be able to create my folders and just keep adding data and not worry about moving folders around when I grow the storage by adding new drives. Is that correct? Maybe someone could point me to a how to.
Also, if I create 2 arrays (And I need to know so I can order the 2 additional 1TB drives), then I could put all the music, G and PG content on the one array and all the R and spicy stuff on the other and password protect it.
View 4 Replies
View Related
Jun 10, 2011
I am trying to build a new array after adjusting TLER on my disks, which permanently changed some of the drives sizes. I am not sure if the following inconsistencies are related to the newly mismatched drive sizes.
Using:
Code:
mdadm --create --auto=md --verbose --chunk=64 --level=5 --raid-devices=4 /dev/md1 /dev/sdd /dev/sde /dev/sdf /dev/sdg
Nets me (build-time was two full days):
[Code]....
On a side note, since I'm recreating my array from scratch, I was wondering if anyone here knows of any optimized settings I could use. I've got 3Tb of data to transfer, so lots of test material.
These are Western Digital First Generation 2TB Green Drives (WD20EADS-00R6B0) with WDidle3 fix applied & TLER=ON. These are pre Advanced Format (aka not 4K).
Code:
mkfs.ext4 -E stripe-width=48,stride=16 /dev/md1
View 9 Replies
View Related
May 31, 2011
i`ve been learning a lot from your Decent site long ago, a long with my Linux Self-Study , i`m a MS System-Admin with 6 months Linux experience and growing ..
## My Situation ## :-
-CentOS 5.6(Final) x86_64 2.6.18-238.9.1.el5xen, Running as Backup-Server.
-4 HDD, 1x500GB , 3x1TB
-2 Raid Arrays (/dev/md0)-RAID1, (/dev/md1)-RAID5
-/boot on (/dev/md0)-RAID1 using ( /dev/sda1, /dev/sdb1)
[Code].....
View 2 Replies
View Related
Jul 17, 2009
I have a 9x320G RAID5 array that I am migrating over to a 3x1.5T RAID5 array.Intermittently, a drive would drop out of the older array and it would automatically start rebuilding. I thought it was a bad cable or controller somewhere, so when I bought the three new drives, I bought a new controller for them all, too. I'm running both arrays side by side until I'm happy the new hardware is stable (one drive was DOA). Then I noticed one morning that both arrays were rebuilding themselves. This was in /var/log/messages:
Quote: Jul 5 00:30:19 mnemosyne -- MARK --
Jul 5 00:50:19 mnemosyne -- MARK --
Jul 5 01:06:02 mnemosyne kernel: md: syncing RAID array md0
[code]....
View 4 Replies
View Related
Jun 18, 2010
I have just bought 4 1TB drives and set up a Software Raid level 5. Using Disk Utility tool I have created a GPT partition table and now when I want to create a partition, I get:
Error creating partition: helper exited with exit code 1: In part_add_partition: device_file=/dev/md0, start=0, size=3000610848768, type=
Entering MS-DOS parser (offset=0, size=3000610848768)
MSDOS_MAGIC found
found partition type 0xee => protective MBR for GPT
[Code].....
it does say nothing about creating an partition on the /dev/md0, although Gnome Disk Utility allows to do that - if I just run mkfs.xsf /dev/md0 - it works fine, yet Disk Utility tells me that disk has not been partitioned, see image:
View 1 Replies
View Related
May 29, 2011
Running OpenSuse 11.4 and have setup 2 x Raid5 configs - raid created, disks format, everything working fine. I've just rebooted and the raid5 fails to initialize.
Getting these errors:
Code:
May 29 16:58:30 suse kernel: [ 1788.170692] md: md0 stopped.
May 29 16:58:30 suse kernel: [ 1788.197864] md: invalid superblock checksum on sdb1
May 29 16:58:30 suse kernel: [ 1788.197876] md: sdb1 does not have a valid v0.90 superblock, not importing!
[Code]....
View 9 Replies
View Related
Jan 8, 2010
I used a raid 5 of 5*1TB via Kernel raid on md0. I then created a luks out of md0 -> /dev/mapper/md0. I formatted ext3 this container. That worked fine. Now I baught another Harddrive and grew the raid to now 6 Devices. The Raid is now running und bigger than before - great. The luksOpen still works BUT I can't mount the ext3 on it. It seems like the luks Volume also grew, it's now 1TB bigger without doing anything. The Problem: I can't mount the luks anymore, mapping it was no big deal so.. Always tells me that I should specify the filesystem type:
Code:
root@ubuntu:/home/ubuntu# mount /dev/mapper/md0 /mnt/tmp
mount: Sie missen den Dateisystemtyp angeben
If I do is then it continues to give me errors:
Code:
root@ubuntu:/home/ubuntu# mount /dev/mapper/md0 /mnt/tmp -t ext3
mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/mapper/md0,
missing codepage or helper program, or other error
Manchmal liefert das Syslog wertvolle Informationen - versuchen
Sie dmesg | tail oder so
It seems as if the luks system doesnt know that the luks container isn't using the whole drive.
View 2 Replies
View Related
Mar 5, 2010
I recently installed a new home backup server with Ubuntu 9.10 x86_64 using the alternate CD. I used the CD's installer to partition my disk and created a software RAID 5 array on 4 disks with no spares. The root file system is located outside the raid array.
At first the array performed nicely but as it started to fill up, the io performance dropped significantly to the point where I get a transfer rate of 1-2MB/s when writing!
[Code]...
View 9 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
