Ubuntu Servers :: Mdadm - Why /dev/sdb1 And /dev/sdi1 Show As Both Ext2fs And Also As Part Of A RAID Array
May 31, 2011
I've been having some problems w/ a my RAID 5 array, and after extensive investigation, I'm fairly sure that my last resort is rebuilding the array. I'd tried --assemble, b/c it's a previously created array, but it didn't seem to like that. So, I checked into --create, and it will re-create the array w/out destroying the data, if the superblocks are persistent, which they seem to be. However, here's what I get:
[Code]....
My question is: why do /dev/sdb1 and /dev/sdi1 show as both ext2fs and also as part of a RAID array?
View 3 Replies
ADVERTISEMENT
Mar 12, 2010
I've recently started having an issue with an mdadm RAID 6 array that been operational for about 2500 hours.
Intermittently during write operations the array stalls, dropping to almost 0 write speed for 10-30 seconds. When this occur one or both of the 2 drives attached to a 2 port Silicon Image si3132 SATA-II controller "locks up" with its activity light locked on. This just started occurring within the last week and didn't seem to coincide with any update that i noticed. The array has just recently passed 12.5% full. The size of the write does not seem to make any difference and it seems completely random. Some times copying a 5 GB dataset results in no slow down other times a torrent downloading to the array at 50kb/sec does cause a slow down and vise versa.
The array consists of 8 WD 1.5TB drives, 6 attached to the ICH9R south bridge, and 2 attached to a si3132 based PCI express card. The array is formatted as a single ext4 partition.
Checking SMART data for all drives shows no errors. Testing read speed with hdparm reports what i would expect (100mb/sec for each drive, ~425mb/sec for the array).
The only thing i did notice is that udma6 is enabled for all the ICH9R drives while only udma5 is enabled for the si3132 drives. Write cache is enabled for all the disks. Attempting to set the si3132 drive to udma6 results in an IO error from hdparm.
The si3132 drive is using the sata_sil24 driver. Nothing of interest appears in the kern or syslog. During this time top shows very high wait time.
The s13132 controller appears to have the original firmware from 2006 loaded, there are some firmware updates available on the Silicon Image website for this controller that now appear to offer separate firmwares for RAID operation (some sort of hybrid controller/software thing the controller supports) and a separate firmware for standard IDE use.
Has anyone had similar issues with this controller? Is a firmware update a reasonable course of action? If so which firmware is best supported by the linux driver?
I know i'm not using its raid features but i've dealt with controllers that needed to be in raid mode for ahci to be active and for linux to work well with them. I'm bit ify at the idea of just trying it and finding out as it could knock 2 disks of my array out of action.
View 2 Replies
View Related
Aug 14, 2010
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 Related
Mar 2, 2011
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
View 12 Replies
View Related
Sep 10, 2010
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]....
View 4 Replies
View Related
Mar 3, 2010
I have a 4 drive RAID 5 array set up using mdadm. The system is stored on a seperate physical disk outside of the array. When reading from the array its fast but when writing to the array its extremely slow, down to 20MB/Sec compared to 125MB/Sec reading. It does a bit then pauses, then writes a bit more and then pauses again and so on.The test i did was to copy a 5GB file from the RAID to another spare non-raid disk on the system average speed 126MB/s. Copying it back on to the RAID (in another folder) the speed was 20MB/s.The other thing is very slow several KB/s write speed copying from eSATA drive to the RAID.
View 9 Replies
View Related
Dec 21, 2010
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]...
View 1 Replies
View Related
Nov 16, 2009
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
Jun 7, 2011
I 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. 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 error
mdadm: Not enough 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]...
View 11 Replies
View Related
Feb 3, 2011
When we assemble a raid array, from where does it load configuration information for that array? I thought it refers to /etc/mdadm.conf file, but in my system, mdadm.conf file doesn't even contain all information. Still it is able to successfully assemble previously created device.
# cat /etc/mdadm.conf
DEVICE /dev/sd[bcdjkl]1
DEVICE /dev/loop[012345]
[code]...
View 2 Replies
View Related
Jul 15, 2010
I've been having troubles with software raid. In particular, the raid array becomes un "assembleable" after reboots. The config is CentOS 5, 4 sata discs (one by 160 containing OS, no raid and 3 2TB disks configured as a RAID 5 array - no spare drive). These drives were configured in anaconda and all seemed to go well (the drive and its lvm partitions worked and it finished rebuilding overnight). A couple of reboots later the drives cannot be assembled anymore and the machine won't boot. The error message says:
mdadm: /dev/md0 assembled from 1 drive and 1 spare - not enough to start the array.
Of course there are 3 drives and no spares in the array as configured. Manually starting the array with mdadm --assemble --scan gives the same message as does assembling the drive by specifying the individual parts. /proc/mdstat does recognize the 3 drives and when I look at the partition tables in fdisk, they show as being software raid. What could be wrong or steps to diagnose? I tried configuring the raid drives manually before going the anaconda route. Also, does anyone know I can edit the /etc/fstab file to disable them so the machine will at least boot. The (Repair filesystem) shell has the / drive mounted r/o.
View 7 Replies
View Related
Oct 27, 2010
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.
View 1 Replies
View Related
Nov 30, 2010
I am learning software raid 1 with centos 5.5. I created the raid with out any problems and removed the first drive to check there was no problems and it booted. I have installed the old drive back in the system as hdc and need to resync the drives (used old drive as partitions correct) I thought I could use raidhotadd but id does not seem to exist anymore. how I resync the drives in the array hda primary and hdc secondary using mdadm
View 1 Replies
View Related
Feb 20, 2011
This is message I get when I try and start itmdadm: /dev/md0 assembled from 2 drives - not enough to start the arrayBelow is the information I've collected about any help on how I can get the raid back up and going to I can get the data off of it would be awesome
sudo mdadm --examine --scan -v
ARRAY /dev/md0 level=raid10 num-devices=4 UUID=91c36708:a7cbb532:5b51dc92:ba008491
devices=/dev/sdd1,/dev/sdc1,/dev/sdb1,/dev/sda1
[code]...
View 1 Replies
View Related
Aug 31, 2010
I have been having this problem for the past couple days and have done my best to solve it, but to no avail. I am using mdadm, which I'm not the most experienced in, to make a raid5 array using three separate disks (dev/sda, dev/sdc, dev/sdd). For some reason not all three drives are being assembled at boot, but I can add the missing array without any problems later, its just that this takes hours to sync. Here is some information:
[Code]....
View 11 Replies
View Related
Sep 27, 2010
I have a NETGEAR ReadyNAS NV+ with four 1TB drives in a RAID-5 array. This is our primary file storage. This has previously been backed up to a hardware RAID-0 array directly attached to our Windows server. The capacity of this backup array is no longer sufficient. So the plan was, take a bunch of 200GB to 320GB drives (And a 750) I had kicking around, chuck them in a couple of old SCSI drive enclosures I have collecting dust, attach them via IDA/SATA-to-USB adaptors to a USB hub, attach that to the server, create a JBOD array spanning the disks, and back up the NAS to that. Performance is not an issue as this is just to be used for backup, with the idea being as near to zero cost as possible (Spend so far = NZ$100�ish).
The first hurdle I struck was Windows not supporting Dynamic Disks on USB drives (Required to create a spanned volume). At first I resisted using another machine (i.e. a machine running Ubuntu) as I didn't want to dedicate a piece of hardware to backing up the NAS. I then decided it would be acceptable to do this via a VM, which is what I've done.So I have 10.04 running under VMWare Server 2.0.2 under Windows Server 2008 R2. The disks are all presented to the VM. I wasn't sure if I was going to end up creating the array under LVM or something else, but I noticed Disk Utility has an option to create an array, so I tried that. When I add two 250GB drives, the array size is 500GB. When I then add a 160GB drive, the array size drops to 480GB. Huh? If I keep adding disks (Regardless of order) the final array size comes out at 1.8 TB, as per the attached screenshot. Now with the following drives, I expected something more like:
160 + 250 + 250+ 750 + 250 +200 + 200 + 250 + 320 + 250 + 320 = 3.2TB
Am I missing something or making a false assumption somewhere?
View 4 Replies
View Related
Jan 21, 2011
when I start my raid5, only 2 disks of 3 are active on md0. The 3rd disk is inactive on md_d0.When I do mdadm --examine, the two active disks report 2 active, 2 working, 1 failed. the inactive disk resports 3 active, 3 working, 0 failed.
View 2 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
Sep 1, 2011
I've been using Ubuntu on my fileserver for quite a while now, and I've always really had this problem, but I want to finally address it and get it fixed. At seemingly random points (when my fileserver is under stress - typically while I'm writing lots of data to it), my fileserver will crash. It generally completely crashes, not responding to any further file requests or any of my SSH commands, and must be reset hard (typically by flipping the power switch). After such an occasion, I end up with some corrupted files. It seems to corrupt a large array of files (it's not an isolated issue - for example, it corrupts files that were not being accessed anywhere near the time it crashed, including files that had never been accessed during that period of uptime). The files don't get completely smashed, but they're definitely corrupted (artifacts in images, skips in audio and video files, often complete failure of binary files such as virtual hard drives or disc images).
I'm using Ubuntu Server 11.04, but similar issues to this happened for me in 10.04 LTS (in fact, I upgraded to try to solve them). I'm using mdadm to create an 8-drive raid6 array. The drives are 1.5 TB each, mostly Samsung HD154UI, but with a WD drive in there too (sorry, I can't find the model number at the moment). The hard drives themselves appear to be working fine - SMART reports no issues with any of them, mdadm says they're all up, and I have no reason to believe that the drives are at fault here (although I can conduct further tests if necessary). I've posted about this problem before here and here. In these cases, the issues seemed to be with XFS - in fact, I switched from XFS to ext4 on my RAID array because I simply believed XFS to be unstable. Unfortunately, this issue occurs with ext4 as well, so I'm fairly certain it's an mdadm issue. Here is the output of "cat /proc/mdstat", for those interested:
[Code]....
View 9 Replies
View Related
Mar 18, 2010
I wonder how to attach new sata hard disk to software array where are two disk and one is crashed (this is a mirroring mode=Raid 1).Situation like this:I unpluged crashed disk and I buy the similar one and plug in What Next should I do?
View 4 Replies
View Related
Oct 6, 2010
Can I use UUIDs to setup a raid with mdadm?
View 3 Replies
View Related
Feb 5, 2011
I am trying to create a new mdadm RAID 5 device /dev/md0 across three disks where such an array previously existed, but whenever I do it never recovers properly and tells me that I have a faulty spare in my array. More-specific details below. I recently installed Ubuntu Server 10.10 on a new box with the intent of using it as a NAS sorta-thing. I have 3 HDDs (2 TB each) and was hoping to use most of the available disk space as a RAID5 mdadm device (which gives me a bit less than 4TB.)
I configured /dev/md0 during OS installation across three partitions on the three disks - /dev/sda5, /dev/sdb5 and /dev/sdc5, which are all identical sizes. The OS, swap partition etc. are all on /dev/sda. Everything worked fine, and I was able to format the device as ext4 and mount it. Good so far.
Then I thought I should simulate a failure before I started keeping important stuff on the RAID array - no point having RAID 5 if it doesn't provide some redundancy that I actually know how to use, right? So I unplugged one of my drives, booted up, and was able to mount the device in a degraded state; test data I had put on there was still fine. Great. My trouble began when I plugged the third drive back in and re-booted. I re-added the removed drive to /dev/md0 and recovery began; things would look something like this:
Code:
user@guybrush:~$ cat /proc/mdstat
Personalities : [linear] [multipath] [raid0] [raid1] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [raid10]
md0 : active raid5 sdc5[3] sdb5[1] sda5[0]
3779096448 blocks level 5, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [3/2] [UU_]
[Code]...
View 9 Replies
View Related
Apr 5, 2011
I bought a disk to a friend that used it in a raid array, using the entire disk for the raid usage. To put that disk on service, i used dd-rescue to copy my old disk entirely, and managed to grow and setup a the partition table without losing any data. My last step was to create a RAID between my entire old disk, with a single partition and a partition of the same size on my new disk. I ran into some problems, but i manage to somehow fix it imperfectly, but now this setup is working properly. The problems (and imperfection) came from an issue it did not suspected : at some point, the original RAID superblock of the new disk, living in /dev/sda, resisted to dd-rescue, and so it is scanned by mdadm that tries, obviously unsuccessfully, to use it.
Partition layout :
Code:
Disk /dev/sda: 1000.2 GB, 1000204886016 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 121601 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
[code]....
this setup is working properly besides this raid5 declared on sda, so that is shows up here and there. Since it is using the same device name that my other, proper raid setup, i don't know how to deactivate it since mdadm uses the /dev/mdx name to identify arrays.
View 4 Replies
View Related
Mar 26, 2011
I have an Areca hardware RAID array that I'm trying to format & partition on a fresh Ubuntu 10.04 LTS installation. The OS drive is not on the RAID card, it's entirely separate. The RAID is a 6TB volume so I realize I have to use parted to format it, not fdisk (which I've always relied on).
My problem is that I can't figure out how to get parted to like my settings. It seems like everything I try gives me the warning "Warning: The resulting partition is not properly aligned for best performance." Here's what I'm doing:
Code:
(parted) p
Model: Areca ARC-1280-VOL#00 (scsi)[code].....
What start/end settings should I use to get a properly aligned partition? How do I know?I have tried a mix and match of 0, 0s, 1, 1s, -0, -0s, -1, -1s, 100% for my start/end with no success.
View 8 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
Jun 4, 2010
I just restarted my server (Ubuntu 9.04 server, running on ESXi 4.0) and while copying files onto the server using samba I got strange problems and the connection was lost. When I rebooted the total system, so ESXi as well as Ubuntu Server I did find problems on my RAID disk.
The directory, where the new files were added I have a lot of files, but a lot of them do not have any info except their name:
1304 -rw-rw-rw- 1 spoorhobby spoorhobby 1327274 2010-05-15 22:10 DSCF1895.JPG
? -????????? ? ? ? ? ? DSCF1896.JPG
? -????????? ? ? ? ? ? DSCF1897.JPG
? -????????? ? ? ? ? ? DSCF1898.JPG
[Code].....
Both mirror disks are still functioning and I can still add/delete files, from the server, from other LINUX systems and from other Windows systems via samba.
I did make a full backup on a different server.
View 9 Replies
View Related
Jun 11, 2010
so my servers 7 hds in raid 5 all was working well until one of them died. The HD that died sort of works it can read like half a file also freezes on the benchmark test in disk utility. Unfortunate when i take it out on boot it says. The drive for /media_kbt is not ready or present press s to skip or m for manual recovery. I hit s and then go to disk utility. But i can't start or add disks to the array.
Here is me trying to do random stuff
Code:
administrator@3dslice-host:~$ sudo mdadm --stop /dev/md0
[sudo] password for administrator:
mdadm: metadata format 00.90 unknown, ignored.
mdadm: stopped /dev/md0
administrator@3dslice-host:~$ sudo mdadm --add /dev/md0 /dev/sda1
mdadm: metadata format 00.90 unknown, ignored.
[Code]...
View 2 Replies
View Related
Sep 7, 2010
I'm currently experiencing some serious issues with WRITE performance on a RAID-1 array. I'm running Ubuntu 10.04 64 bit server with the latest updates. To evaluate the performance ran the following test: [URL]... (great article btw!) Using dd to measure, write performance is only at 8.7 MB/s. Read is great though at 74.5 MB/s. The tests were ran straight after rebooting and I have not (YET!) done any kernel tuning or customization, running the default server package of the Ubuntu kernel. Here's the motherboard in the server: [URL]... with a beta bios to support drives over 300GB.
[code]...
As you can see from the bo column there is definitely something stalling. As per top output, the %wa (waiting for i/o) is always around %75 however as per above, writes are stalling. CPU is basically idle all the time. Hard drives are quite new and smartctl (smartmontools) does not detect any faults.
View 4 Replies
View Related
Jun 6, 2011
I have an ubuntu 10.04 machine that I use primarily as a file server. I have a RAID5 array built with mdadm from 3 component disks that worked properly until a recent upgrade (I'm not sure exactly what broke it though). The array is /dev/md0 and is set to mount at /var/media on bootup. *Now*, when the system cold boots it hangs partway through the bootup sequence and throws the following error:
The disk drive for /var/media is not ready yet Press S to skip ... Once I "S"kip this manually, I can see that LOWER in the boot sequence mdadm gets called and assembles the drive, and once fully booted into the system I can then simply do a "mount -a" and the array mounts properly. SO... my gut feeling is that some portion of one of the upgrades changed the order in which things are called, and now the "mdadm assemble" is not triggered until AFTER the system tries to mount the drives. My problem is that I don't know the stuff that controls the boot sequence well enough to dig in the right place.
As a workaround I can remove that entry from /etc/fstab, but then (of course) the system won't auto-mount the array. It's better than the boot process completely hanging because as least THIS I can fix remotely, but I'd really like to know
1) why this broke in an upgrade and is it a known problem?
2) how to get it back to where it auto-assembles and then auto-mounts the array on bootup.
View 9 Replies
View Related
Jun 6, 2011
I have 10.04 server with a linkstation raid 5 attached via usb. What is the best way to monitor the drives for a failure? Its at a remote site
View 2 Replies
View Related
