On 3 June 2013 16:35, Greg Oster <[email protected]> wrote: > raid0 is a RAID 1 set, yes?
Thats right. >> At that point the / raid1 was running on wd0 and wd1 and had the > > By this you mean a RAID 1 set for / ? Yes, the device /dev/raid0 which is a RAID 1 set and is mounted on /. > If I had to guess, I'd bet that at some point a component label didn't > get written to wd0 for the RAID 5 set, and that caused it to be marked > as 'failed' on a subsequent boot. That sounds right. When I build the RAID 5 set originally I built it with wd1, wd2 and wd3 (using wd0 to bootstrap it) and then added wd0 in after it was working. So it looks like I didn't reboot and check the array was working properly after adding wd0 to it. Not good. >> My reading of the situation is that raidframe in incorrectly failing >> the part of the raid5 on wd0 due to read errors on wd1. > > No.... wd0 had failed before, and hadn't been in use. For how long, I > have no idea, but my guess would be for at least a few reboots. Read > errors on wd1 are causing issues with getting wd0 to rebuild. > > ... > > Good luck! > > Later... > > Greg Oster Thank you Greg, it makes a lot more sense to me now. Will
