Neil Cavan wrote:
> Hello,
Hi Neil
What kernel version?
What mdadm version?
> This morning, I woke up to find the array had kicked two disks. This
> time, though, /proc/mdstat showed one of the failed disks (U_U_U, one
> of the "_"s) had been marked as a spare - weird, since there are no
> spare
On Sunday October 22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The drives have not been repartitioned.
>
> I think what happened is that I created a new raid5 array over the old
> one, but never synced or initialized it.
If you created an array - whether it synced or not - the superblock
would be written and -
The drives have not been repartitioned.
I think what happened is that I created a new raid5 array over the old
one, but never synced or initialized it.
I'm leery of re-creating the array as you suggest, because I think
re-creating an array "over top" of my existing array is what got me into
troub
On Saturday October 21, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I had a run-in with the Ubuntu Server installer, and in trying to get
> the new system to recognize the clean 5-disk raid5 array left behind by
> the previous Ubuntu system, I think I inadvertently instructed it to
> create a new raid arra
Hello,
I replaced the failed disk. The configuration is /dev/hde, /dev/hdf
(replaced), on IDE channel 0, /dev/hdg, /dev/hdh on IDE channel 1, on a
single PCI controller card. The issue here is that hde in now also not
accessible after the failure of hdf. I cannot see the jumper configs as
Nate Byrnes wrote:
> Hi All,
>I'm not sure that is entirely the case. From a hardware
> perspective, I can access all the disks from the OS, via fdisk and dd.
> It is really just mdadm that is failing. Would I still need to work
> the jumper issue?
>Thanks,
>Nate
>
IF the disks are as
Hi All,
I'm not sure that is entirely the case. From a hardware perspective,
I can access all the disks from the OS, via fdisk and dd. It is really
just mdadm that is failing. Would I still need to work the jumper issue?
Thanks,
Nate
Maurice Hilarius wrote:
Nathanial Byrnes wrote:
Nathanial Byrnes wrote:
> Yes, I did not have the funding nor approval to purchase more hardware
> when I set it up (read wife). Once it was working... the rest is
> history.
>
>
OK, so if you have a pair of IDE disks, jumpered as Master and slave,
and if one fails:
If Master failed, re-jumper
Yes, I did not have the funding nor approval to purchase more hardware
when I set it up (read wife). Once it was working... the rest is
history.
On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 16:13 -0600, Maurice Hilarius wrote:
> Nathanial Byrnes wrote:
> > Hi All,
> > Recently I lost a disk in my raid5 SW array. It
Nathanial Byrnes wrote:
> Hi All,
> Recently I lost a disk in my raid5 SW array. It seems that it took a
> second disk with it. The other disk appears to still be funtional (from
> an fdisk perspective...). I am trying to get the array to work in
> degraded mode via failed-disk in raidtab, bu
2.4.1 behaves just like 2.1. so far nothing in the syslog or messages.
On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 10:24 +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Monday April 17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Unfortunately nothing changed.
>
> Weird... so hdf still reports as 'busy'?
> Is it mentioned anywhere in /var/log/messag
On Monday April 17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Unfortunately nothing changed.
Weird... so hdf still reports as 'busy'?
Is it mentioned anywhere in /var/log/messages since reboot?
What version of mdadm are you using? Try 2.4.1 and see if that works
differently.
NeilBrown
>
>
> On Tue, 2006-0
Unfortunately nothing changed.
On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 07:43 +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Monday April 17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Hi Neil, List,
> > Am I just out of luck? Perhaps a full reboot? Something else?
> > Thanks,
> > Nate
>
> Reboot and try again seems like the best b
On Monday April 17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi Neil, List,
> Am I just out of luck? Perhaps a full reboot? Something else?
> Thanks,
> Nate
Reboot and try again seems like the best bet at this stage.
NeilBrown
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid"
Hi Neil, List,
Am I just out of luck? Perhaps a full reboot? Something else?
Thanks,
Nate
Nate Byrnes wrote:
Hi Neil,
Nothing references hdf as you can see below. I have also rmmod'ed
md and raid5 modules and modprobed them back in. Thoughts?
Thanks again,
Nate
[EMAIL PROT
Hi Neil,
Nothing references hdf as you can see below. I have also rmmod'ed
md and raid5 modules and modprobed them back in. Thoughts?
Thanks again,
Nate
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# cat /proc/swaps
FilenameTypeSizeUsed
Priority
/dev/sdb2
On Monday April 17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > What is /dev/hdf busy? Is it in use? mounted? something?
> >
> Not that I am aware of. Here is the mount output:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/etc# mount
> /dev/sda1 on / type ext3 (rw)
> proc on /proc type proc (rw)
> sysfs on /sys type sysfs (rw)
>
Please see below.
On Mon, 2006-04-17 at 13:04 +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Sunday April 16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Hi Neil,
> > Thanks for your reply. I tried that, but here is there error I
> > received:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/etc# mdadm --assemble /dev/md0
> > --uuid=38081921:59a
On Sunday April 16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi Neil,
> Thanks for your reply. I tried that, but here is there error I
> received:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/etc# mdadm --assemble /dev/md0
> --uuid=38081921:59a998f9:64c1a001:ec53 4ef2 /dev/hd[efgh]
> mdadm: failed to add /dev/hdf to /dev/md0:
Hi Neil,
Thanks for your reply. I tried that, but here is there error I
received:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/etc# mdadm --assemble /dev/md0
--uuid=38081921:59a998f9:64c1a001:ec53 4ef2 /dev/hd[efgh]
mdadm: failed to add /dev/hdf to /dev/md0: Device or resource busy
mdadm: /dev/md0 assembled from 2
On Saturday April 15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi All,
> Recently I lost a disk in my raid5 SW array. It seems that it took a
> second disk with it. The other disk appears to still be funtional (from
> an fdisk perspective...). I am trying to get the array to work in
> degraded mode via fai
On Tuesday November 15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > mdadm --add /dev/md0 /dev/sda2..
> yes , i am using raidstart for this. it should be the same.
No, it shouldn't.
raidstart is broken by design and cannot work reliable. It is one of
the main reasons that I wrote mdadm.
raidstart trusts the de
> mdadm --add /dev/md0 /dev/sda2..
yes , i am using raidstart for this. it should be the same.
I am handling a big cluster with supermicro machines,each machine has its
own 4 sata disks.I am using 2.6.6 kernel.
Did you ever pulled out a disk from raid5 while the machine was running ?
Just want to
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 09:27:25PM +0200, Raz Ben-Jehuda(caro) wrote:
> I have made the following test with my raid5:
> 1. created raid5 with 4 sata disks.
> 2. waited untill raid was fully initialized.
> 3. pulled a disk from the panel.
> 4. shut the system.
> 5. put back the disk.
> 6. turn on th
24 matches
Mail list logo
