I'm trying to get mdadm to assemble all my drives with help of uuid.
When I use
$ sudo mdadm --assemble /dev/md0 /dev/sdb /dev/sdc /dev/sdd
mdadm: /dev/md0 has been started with 3 drives.
So the setup works. But I want to do it the proper way with UUID.
$ sudo blkid
[Code]...
trying to troubleshoot an issue i'm having with MDADM I have a raid 5 array consisting of 5 2tb Western Digital Green drives. It has been working fine for the last 6-7 months but recently has stopped working. After rebooting i get an error something like "unable to mount /mnt/storage" which is the filesystem on the raid array the raid array is /dev/md0 when i do a " sudo mdadm --assemble --scan" i get the error mdadm: /dev/md0 assembled from 3 drives - not enough to start the array all the drives are there and i can see the correct partition information if i load them up in parted.
View 1 Replies View RelatedI 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.
trying to troubleshoot an issue i'm having with MDADM.I have a raid 5 array consisting of 5 2tb Western Digital Green drives.It has been working fine for the last 6-7 months but recently has stopped working.After rebooting i get an error something like "unable to mount /mnt/storage" which is the filesystem on the raid array the raid array is /dev/md0.when i do a " sudo mdadm --assemble --scan" i get the error mdadm: /dev/md0 assembled from 3 drives - not enough to start the array.all the drives are there and i can see the correct partition information if i load them up in parted.i didnt get an emails or notification on if the drives failed, so i'm running a smart check on them now
View 1 Replies View RelatedI have an mdadm/lvm2 volume with 4 HDs that I created in Ubuntu 10.04. I just upgraded the computer to Ubuntu 10.10.
I redid the mdadm commands to get volume up and running, did mdadm --detail --scan > /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf to get the configuration file.
But now, every time I reboot, it tells me that the volume is not ready. /proc/mdstat says that I always have one disk of the volume "inactive" as md_d127. I need to stop this volume and reassemble the whole thing to get it working.
This is what I get out of mdadm --detail --scan and put inside /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf:
And this is my /proc/mdstat on boot:
I need to do mdadm -S /dev/md_d127, mdadm -S /dev/md127, mdadm -A --scan to get this volume working again.
This did not happen with Ubuntu 10.04. I'm really fearing the loss of my raid5 data now.
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].....
I am trying to set up a mdadm raid in a new PC that I am building for home theatre. the machine boot just fine from /dev/sdc running ubuntu 9.10 However in gparted /dev/sda and dev/sdb show to be part of /devmapper/sil_ajbicfacbaej Both dev/sda and /dev/sdb were drives that used to be part of a sil hardware raid on a previous machine. I would like to use them as a new mdadm raid on this new machine the old hardware card was really quite slow. the drives are now pluged into the MB and should bw much faster there.
fdisk -l shows this
*********************************************** ~$ sudo fdisk -l
Disk /dev/sda: 1500.3 GB, 1500301910016 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 182401 cylinders
[code]....
I have a 4 disk raid 5 array on my Ubuntu 10.10 box. They are /dev/sd[c,d,e,f].Smartctl started notifying me that /dev/sde had some bad sectors and the number of errors was increasing each day. To mitigate this I decided to buy a new drive and replace it.I have an external 4-bay disk enclosure. I failed /dev/sde via mdadm:
Code:
mdadm --manage /dev/md0 --fail /dev/sde
mdadm --manage /dev/md0 --remove /dev/sde
[code]...
I 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 RelatedIts from a Synology Box with 3 disks, which one is damaged. But this disk wasnt in use.Take a look on the raid-size of 493 GB - and the both available disks with 250GB..)
On the others there were a linear raid. during this damaged disk the synology-device tells me, that the volume was crashed.But it look like, that this disk was not mounted into this volume.Quote:
DiskStation> mdadm --detail /dev/md2
/dev/md2:
Version : 00.90
[code]....
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 RelatedThis 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]...
Here's a brief description of my system:
120GB Sata HDD - Primary OS drive
3 x 1.0TB Sata HDD - Raid 5 array
This is on a C2D MSI P35 Platinum board. Anyway, did a fresh install of F12 on the 120GB, which I had problems with - Anaconda refused to see the drive. Fedora Live could see it fine, and it was listed as an 'nvidia_raid_member' - no idea why, but I completely erased the disc under the Live CD and proceeded to install F12.
Once F12 was installed, I loaded up mdadm to re-activate my Raid 5 array, using 'sudo mdadm --assemble --uuidthe uuid) - and it started with only 2 of the 3 drives. My /dev/sdb drive did not activate into the array, due to what mdadm said was a mismatched UUID. Ok, so I erased /dev/sdb, intending to rebuild the array. Erased /dev/sdb, and then attempted 'sudo mdadm --add /dev/md0 /dev/sdb' and I get this error: "mdadm: Cannot add disks to a 'member' array, perform this operation on the parent container" - I can find NO information on this error message.
[Code].....
I don't believe the hard drives are connected in the exact same order they were in before - I disconnected everything in the system and blew it out (it was pretty dusty)
I have Ubuntu 10.10 (maverick) and I'm using mdadm 3.1.4. I have created a RAID 10 using imsm as the metadata, and this runs successfully if I assemble the RAID from the command line. My question is: How do I get the RAID to auto assemble when I boot the system? I would like to be able to mount the RAID when the system starts up (but the OS is on a separate disk altogether). What I've found out so far is that I must do a Code: update-initramfs -k all -u AFTER I've modified the /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf file. This is what I've got in my configuration file:
[Code]....
BUT what happens is that when I reboot my server, and then do "ls -l /dev/md*" there is no listing at all for any RAID devices. I actually have to run the assemble command on command line and that is when I see listings for RAID devices under /dev. What am I missing?
I would like to use tcc to compile source, but not assemble. Like GCC's option: -S. Is this possible?
View 1 Replies View RelatedI am planning on setting up a 4x1TB RAID5 with mdadm under Ubuntu 9.10. I tried installing mdadm using "sudo apt-get install mdadm", all worked fine except for the following error: Code: Generating array device nodes... /var/lib/dpkg/info/mdadm.postinst: 170: /dev/MAKEDEV: not found failed. The end result is the /dev/md0 device has not been created, as can be seen here:
Code: windsok@beer:~$ mdadm --detail /dev/md0 mdadm: cannot open /dev/md0: No such file or directory After googling, I found the following bug which describes the issue: [URL] However it was reported way back in April 2009, and it does not look like it will be fixed any time soon, so I was wondering if anyone knows a workaround for this bug, to get me up and running?
My hard drives kept dropping out of the raid array, so I finally identified the problem as a bad sata cable. I redid the wires and now when I try to assemble I get this:
Code:
mdadm -v --assemble --scan /dev/md0
mdadm: looking for devices for /dev/md0
mdadm: no recogniseable superblock on /dev/sde4
[code].....
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
I have made a drive image with Clonezilla only to find out that it was split in to 2GB images.how can I "Join" or assemble these into a single image? This has been making me crazy for days. PS Clonezilla used dd to create these images....
View 3 Replies View Relatedupgraded from karmic through update managerANDnone of of my external drives cd drive or flash drives are picked upad to go back to karmic and will remain there for a whil
View 9 Replies View RelatedI'm breaking into the OS drive side with RAID-1 now. I have my server set up with a pair of 80 GB drives, mirrored (RAID-1) and have been testing the fail-over and rebuild process. Works great physically failing out either drive. Great! My next quest is setting up a backup procedure for the OS drives, and I want to know how others are doing this.
Here's what I was thinking, and I'd love some feedback: Fail one of the disks out of the RAID-1, then image it to a file, saved on an external disk, using the dd command (if memory serves, it would be something like "sudo dd if=/dev/sda of=backupfilename.img") Then, re-add the failed disk back into the array. In the event I needed to roll back to one of those snapshots, I would just use the "dd" command to dump the image back on to an appropriate hard disk, boot to it, and rebuild the RAID-1 from that.
Does that sound like a good practice, or is there a better way? A couple notes: I do not have the luxury of a stack of extra disks, so I cannot just do the standard mirror breaks and keep the disks on-hand, and using something like a tape drive is also not an option.
I recently had issues with the latest version of the Linux Kernels and I got that fixed but ever since that has happened none of my Drives will mount and they aren't even recognized.
View 1 Replies View Relatedi have recently setup and installed Ubuntu 9.04 on a virtulal drive usingVMWare 6.04, installed the desktop gui as well, I need to add other drives for data and loggng, which I did in the VMWare side. I can see the 2 drives in ubuntu, but can not access them, I get he unable to mount location when I try. How can resolve this please as I need these to virtual drives to be used as data drives.
View 1 Replies View RelatedI've used it once before but got fed up with the boot asking me everytime I turned my laptop on because I wasn't using it enough. I have Windows 7 on drive C . I want to keep it on drive C. I have several 1.5TB+ drives, and one of them is not being used. I want to dedicate it to Ubuntu, and be able to do a dual boot with my Windows 7 install. Is this possible? If it is, what about when this drive is not connected to my laptop? Will that mess up the boot process?
View 2 Replies View Relatedso 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]....
I am building a home server that will host a multitude of files; from mp3s to ebooks to FEA software and files. I don't know if RAID is the right thing for me. This server will have all the files that I have accumulated over the years and if the drive fails than I will be S.O.L. I have seen discussions where someone has RAID 1 setup but they don't have their drives internally (to the case), they bought 2 separate external hard drives with eSata to minimize an electrical failure to the drives. (I guess this is a good idea)I have also read about having one drive then using a second to rsync data every week. I planned on purchasing 2 enterprise hard drives of 500 MB to 1 GB but I don't have any experience with how I should handle my data
View 10 Replies View RelatedI suspect this is not new but I just can't find where it was treated. Maybe someone can give me a good lead.I just want to prevent certain users from accessing CD/DVD drives and all external drives. They should be able to mount their home directories and move around within the OS but they shouldn't be able to move data away from the PC. Any Clues?
View 2 Replies View RelatedSo, at the moment I have a 7TB LVM with 1 group and one logical volume. In all honesty I don't back up this information. It is filled with data that I can "afford" to lose, but... would rather not. How do LVMs fail? If I lose a 1.5TB drive that is part of the LVM does that mean at most I could lose 1.5TB of data? Or can files span more than one drive? if so, would it just be one file what would span two drives? or could there be many files that span multiple drives drives? Essentially. I'm just curious, in a general, in a high level sense about LVM safety. What are the risks that are involved?
Edit: what happens if I boot up the computer with a drive missing from the lvm? Is there a first primary drive?
I have Fedora 14 installed on my main internal drive. I have one Fedora 14 and one Fedora 15 installed on two separate USB drives.When I boot into any of these drives, I can't access any of the other hard drives from the other drivesll I can, but just the boot partitions.Is there any way of mounting the other partitions so I can access the information?---------- Post added at 12:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:34 AM ----------I guess even an explanation on why I can't view them would be good too.
View 7 Replies View RelatedI have an email server that I think is about to have a hard drive fail. It is running an old install of Redhat 9.0 I think. It has 2 120gb hard drives mirrored as a raid1. I want to copy those to a new pair of 500gb hard drives again as the same disk raid1 mirror. What tool would work for this? DD or partimage? Would it all be exactly the same and boot up still?
View 3 Replies View Related