Ubuntu Servers :: OS Drive /dev/sda Changed Labels With Raid5 Disk /dev/sdc?
Jun 25, 2011
My original config:
**Partition/Drive info**
/dev/sda Boot----------> 298.09 GB Hitachi HDT72503
20GB /
16GB /swap
50GB /var
[code]....
1. For some odd reason I tried connecting to a samba share as I had it setup and I could not.
2. Looked at webmin and it said my whole /dev/md0 RAID5 was being used..about 7.8TBs. decided to check my RAID5 setup and drives and noticed
**NEW Partition/Drive info**
/dev/sda Raid Array 1 1.82 TB SAMSUNG HD204UI
/dev/sdb Raid Array 1 1.82 TB SAMSUNG HD204UI
/dev/sdc1 /
[code]....
I didn't connect any new drives or anything. I had checked my "mdadm.conf" and "fstab" and everything looked the same?
View 3 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
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
May 13, 2011
Here is my brief hardware and software detail in my production environment : AMD Phenom X4 3.4gHZ (Over clock to 4gHZ, 8G of Memory, 1TB 7200rpm Harddrive, Running Ubuntu server 10.10.My web production environment were pieced together 3 weeks ago.Here is my dilemma. started out with less that 40 users and now hitting 4,000 unique users per day.Now I am thinking I need faster write to disk and backup of data so I am thinking about putting together a Raid5.
I preparation for this.I have bought a new motherboard, AMD Phenom X4 3.6, and 2 more 2TB 7200rpm (Currently, I have a 2TB 7200rpm not used much)Been digging around this forum for posts with raid setup but still not sure how to seamlessly moving the some 10Gig of data from my current running prod environment once I have RAID5 installed on this new machine via the LIVE Ubuntu Server CD.
View 3 Replies
View Related
Dec 7, 2010
As the title says, I have a failed RAID5 hard drive. What's the easiest way I can go by replacing it? I've seen many ways to do this, but I would like to know what other people are saying about this, and see how you would do it.
P.S. This is the one I found. [URL]
View 3 Replies
View Related
Jan 9, 2011
I've got a raid5 array of 4 disks with ubuntu 8.04 runing on it that is currently still working:
/dev/sda
/dev/sdb
/dev/sdc
/dev/sdd
Smartmontools for /dev/sdc tell that there are 9 sectors pending for reallocation:
Code:
197 Current_Pending_Sector 0x0012 100 100 000 Old_age Always - 9
198 Offline_Uncorrectable 0x0010 100 100 000 Old_age Offline - 9
And /dev/sdd has increasing number of reallocated sectors (about 1 every couple of minutes):
Code:
5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct 0x0033 100 100 036 Pre-fail Always - 1735
/dev/sdc has failed a coulple of times this week (but I have always sucessfully readded it to raid5) . But the increasing number of reallocated sectores on /dev/sdd concerns me even more.
I'm affraid that during removal of /dev/sdd and adding new /devs/sdd disk, raid might fall appart. That's why I would try to do it in Ubuntu Live CD:If the raid falls appart (/dev/sdc fails) during the readding of new /dev/sdd disk, I might still remove the new /dev/sdd and return the previous one and assemble the raid with:
/dev/sda
/dev/sdb
/dev/sdd (old one that was previously removed)
Does assembling Raid in Ubuntu Live and adding new disk for /dev/sdd write anything on /dev/sda, /dev/sdb and /dev/sdc in the process of adding /dev/sdd into raid5?
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
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
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
Mar 6, 2011
I wanted to extend my raid array with one disk, but I made a major error. I forgot partition the new disk to utilize the full 640GB. I used the following commands to extend the array:
Code:
mdadm --add /dev/md0 /dev/sdf
mdadm --grow --raid-devices=6 /dev/md0
xfs_growfs /dev/md0
After noticing that something was wrong I used these commands to remove the new disk:
[Code]....
How can I repair this situation? Before starting this adventure I made a back-up of everything that was stored in the raid array.
View 1 Replies
View Related
Mar 8, 2010
I've tried to type this message twice in detail, but the computer won't submit it. What are the proper steps to take when a SCSI drive fails in a RAID five array running CentOS 5.4?
Yes, I read the manual. On a Dell 6650 system the drive can't be rebuilt because it is not recognized as the correct size. Linux rescue doesn't work... won't find the linux partitions that are still there according to fdisk -l
View 7 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
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
Jun 15, 2011
I'm a bit at a loss on this one. I couldn't get a drive from a former RAID5 array to format. I did a dd to write zero's to the drive and attempted to fsck only to be stopped every time with the error: Couldn't find ext2 superblock, trying backup blocks.. fsck.ext3: Bad magic number in super-block while trying to open /dev/sda1
Smartctl shows no problems with the drive (a Seagate 750GB), but I haven't removed it and thrown it in a windows machine to do seagates proprietary drive diagnostics yet. Running Centos5.6 .I've never had this problem before. The drive is not mounted and the old md device has been removed as far as I can tell. It could still be attempting to assemble the RAID5 with the 1 drive, but I didn't see it attempt to do so.
[Code]...
View 3 Replies
View Related
Mar 18, 2010
I've built a server with (intentionally) very low-power components. The motherboard uses a Via C3 CPU running at 700MHz. The server has 512MB of RAM and I'm running 8.04 Server Edition (no GUI). This is purely a file server - not a lot of daemons started (except the defaults) -- no web server, etc. Just NFS, Samba and Open SSH (for remote administration). I'm not sure how much free RAM it has (it's down at the moment).
Is the RAM/CPU going to be inadequate for running software RAID5? I've done some big rsyncs and even without RAID, this thing is pretty slow. I'm not terribly concerned about the write speed, but if the read performance is going to be inadequate for playing (not streaming - just playing) a 720p MKV movie over my LAN, then I need to rethink this.
View 2 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 8, 2011
I have software raid 5 array, each time I reboot my server, I have to rebuild array again. Rebuilding array takes too long. I am using ubuntu server 10.10.
View 7 Replies
View Related
Jul 5, 2010
I also get sent to a Busybox (initramfs) shell with no text editor and don't know how to copy all the error messages and post them here. If there is a way, let me know. I've typed it out in the meantime:
Code:
md0 : inactive sdxxxx
Attempting to start the RAID in degraded mode...
mdadm: CREATE user root not found
mdadm: CREATE group disk not found
[Code].....
This is with a 3 disk RAID5 array. I turned off the system, pulled out a drive, and started it back up. Fresh install, all I've done so far is apt-get update and upgrade.
View 4 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
May 22, 2011
I am trying to build a file server with RAID 5 over a couple of 1TB HDDs, to serve about 10 client machines using Ubuntu Server. I already own a 22-port switch: HP ProCurve v1810G-24 Switch (J9450A), which I am assuming will do the job. And for the actual server I am thinking of buying: HP ProLiant DL120 1U. Will this hardware suffice, or am I missing something important to get the whole thing running?
View 9 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
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
Feb 27, 2011
I opened GParted to create a new partition on a new drive. He wanted me to create a partition table first which I did, and it was created directly without any prompt like im used to see when creating partition. So I recognized too late, that i actually created a MBR on one of my 6 1TB raid5 drives. Not beeing sure if the ne MBR was really written, I have opened ubuntu disk utility and clicked on the check raid button. It directly made a resync. After the resync, mdadm --detail /dev/md0 told me everything is ok and synced. Then I wanted to mount it with:
mount /dev/md0 /mnt Then I get the following error: "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 dmesg | tail or so" I think I just killed my raid5 ;(
I shouldnt work on my server when im tired and when I actually have no time ;( My last hope is the fact, that "Disk Utility" shows that there is a .0 TB ext4 volume on my raid (see screen below) [URL]
View 5 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
May 7, 2009
Here's the deal: I had a nice little fileserver running under 2.6.27.21-170.2.56.fc10.x86_64.
3 disks in raid 5 ext4fs, then I thought..."hey I'm a greedy bastard..I want another drive!!
So I get it..do a normal mdadm --grow...after around 1100 minutes .. FINISHED!..whee..happy...
I decide to do a upgrade to 2.6.29.2-52.fc10.x86_64 to get the fix for growing the ext4..
reboot...
Code:
md: bind<sda3>
md: sdc3 has same UUID but different superblock to sda3
md: sdc3 has different UUID to sda3
md: export_rdev(sdc3)
md: sdd3 has same UUID but different superblock to sda3
[Code]....
View 5 Replies
View Related
Apr 21, 2011
I've noticed that emacs does not notice when an open file is changed on disk (unlike ,say, geany). Is there any way of making it watch for changes of files on disk?
View 1 Replies
View Related
Apr 26, 2011
We had a server failure this morning because grub was throwing error 15 (file not found). We discovered that the disk had changed names from hd0,0 to hd1,0. Making the appropriate replacements in menu.lst fixed the problem, but I'm still wondering what could have caused the spontaneous name change.
here are some other possibly related tidbits: * the server had been down because of a power loss, but it is behind a UPS so i doubt there is any electrical damage * eth0 also temporarily failed but the system failed over to eth1
My current theory is that when the bios was configuring the hardware the loss of eth0 shuffled around the addresses of the remaining hardware on the pci bus, which somehow caused the hd0/hd1 confusion. The problem is that everything i've read [URL] says that the drive assignment should be based on the way the disk is connected to the motherboard (which in this case didn't change)
View 2 Replies
View Related
Dec 23, 2010
I have a RAID 5 array, md0, with three full-disk (non-partitioned) members, sdb, sdc, and sdd. My computer will hang during the AHCI BIOS if AHCI is enabled instead of IDE, if these drives are plugged in. I believe it may be because I'm using the whole disk, and the AHCI BIOS expects an MBR to be on the drive (I don't know why it would care).
Is there a way to convert the array to use members sdb1, sdc1 and sdd1, partitioned MBR with 0xFD RAID partitions?
View 1 Replies
View Related
