Re: [gentoo-user] recovering RAID from an old server
Agreed, however Iain also said that he tried to mount individual partitions and this failed. This should work with RAID1 Only if you force the filesystem type (i.e. mount -t xxx, or use mount.xxx directly). However, while I know this works with ext2/ext3/ext4, I have no idea if xfs is also smart enough to ignore the raid superblock and mount the filesystem anyway in this case. andrea
Re: [gentoo-user] recovering RAID from an old server
On Sat, 2010-02-20 at 16:22 +0100, Andrea Conti wrote: AFAICT this is all you need to know -- you definitely have two software (mdraid) RAID 1 volumes: md100 with hda2, hde2 and hdg2 as members md101 with hda5, hde5 and hdg5 as members Both arrays seem to have lost a member (I guess hdc2 and hdc5 respectively). Honestly I don't know what is the point of running RAID1 volumes with four mirrors, but that seems to be the way it was configured. strange, I'm pretty sure I didn't configure it like this - however it has an inbuilt snapshot feature so maybe that's what the mirrors are for... I'm having some luck chasing up the original CDs so I think I'll try that first. thanks :) -- Iain Buchanan iaindb at netspace dot net dot au If it smells it's chemistry, if it crawls it's biology, if it doesn't work it's physics.
Re: [gentoo-user] recovering RAID from an old server
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 09:10:41 +0100, Andrea Conti wrote: Agreed, however Iain also said that he tried to mount individual partitions and this failed. This should work with RAID1 Only if you force the filesystem type (i.e. mount -t xxx, or use mount.xxx directly). Not in my experience. However, while I know this works with ext2/ext3/ext4, I have no idea if xfs is also smart enough to ignore the raid superblock and mount the filesystem anyway in this case. The RAID superblock is at the end of the filesystem, to avoid any conflicts with the filesystem superblock. -- Neil Bothwick Never get into fights with ugly people because they have nothing to lose. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] recovering RAID from an old server
The RAID superblock is at the end of the filesystem, to avoid any conflicts with the filesystem superblock. It can be either at the start, at the end or even 4K into the device, depending on which format (metadata revision) is used. In this case I suppose it's 0.90, which is stored at the beginning. andrea
Re: [gentoo-user] recovering RAID from an old server
On Saturday 20 February 2010 06:29:03 Iain Buchanan wrote: so it looks like there's some problems with hdc. Are there any disk hardware testing tools on the gentoo minimal live cd? If you want to check the disk use sys-apps/smartmontools, but this problem may be a fs corruption - which could of course have been caused by the hardware failing. -- Regards, Mick
Re: [gentoo-user] recovering RAID from an old server
On 20 Feb 2010, at 04:31, Iain Buchanan wrote: On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 14:44 +, Stroller wrote: On 19 Feb 2010, at 12:15, Iain Buchanan wrote: ... Can I randomly mount partitions read-only or will this screw things up further? If this is unsafe I will have ketchup mustard on my baseball cap. er... could you translate that? How about dead horse on my baggy green? http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/I'll+eat+my+hat I just don't see how you can break anything *as long as* you don't let the system write anything to the disks. How can read-only be unsafe? One might be paranoid enough to clone images of the drive before proceeding, however. My one concern is over how you know this system uses software RAID. You know that EIDE hardware RAID was available, right? I'm sure this would rarely be available built-in to the motherboard. Stroller.
Re: [gentoo-user] recovering RAID from an old server
On Sat, 2010-02-20 at 13:39 +, Stroller wrote: On 20 Feb 2010, at 04:31, Iain Buchanan wrote: On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 14:44 +, Stroller wrote: On 19 Feb 2010, at 12:15, Iain Buchanan wrote: ... Can I randomly mount partitions read-only or will this screw things up further? If this is unsafe I will have ketchup mustard on my baseball cap. er... could you translate that? How about dead horse on my baggy green? http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/I'll+eat+my+hat yeah, I got that, I was just picking on your use of ketchup baseball. Over here it's tomatoe sauce (dead horse) and cricket (baggy greens) :) Most of my jokes need explaining %-) I just don't see how you can break anything *as long as* you don't let the system write anything to the disks. How can read-only be unsafe? Perhaps something to do with the superblock or last mount time or something? I don't know! I know that mounting a drive while a system is hibernated, even ro, will kill kittens. One might be paranoid enough to clone images of the drive before proceeding, however. I don't have enough spare... My one concern is over how you know this system uses software RAID. You know that EIDE hardware RAID was available, right? I'm sure this would rarely be available built-in to the motherboard. well there appears to be no RAID controller, unless it's onboard, but as I mentioned to Francessco the BIOS can see all drives, so can gentoo minimal... I've since found that the OS is in flash RAM, and only the help files are on disk, so maybe I have bigger problems if I can't boot :( I hope to get a copy of Guardian OS somehow... thanks, -- Iain Buchanan iaindb at netspace dot net dot au Go ahead, bake my quiche -- Magrat instructs the castle cook (Terry Pratchett, Lords and Ladies)
Re: [gentoo-user] recovering RAID from an old server
md: bindhdg2,1 md: bindhde2,2 md: bindhda2,3 raid1: raid set md100 active with 3 out of 4 mirrors md: bindhdg5,1 md: bindhde5,2 md: bindhda5,3 raid1: raid set md101 active with 3 out of 4 mirrors AFAICT this is all you need to know -- you definitely have two software (mdraid) RAID 1 volumes: md100 with hda2, hde2 and hdg2 as members md101 with hda5, hde5 and hdg5 as members Both arrays seem to have lost a member (I guess hdc2 and hdc5 respectively). Honestly I don't know what is the point of running RAID1 volumes with four mirrors, but that seems to be the way it was configured. I would suggest that you take a *single* disk (let's say hdg) out of the thing and hook it up to a fully functional Gentoo system with mdraid (and of course XFS) compiled in the kernel and sys-fs/mdadm installed. Then you can bring up each RAID volume in degraded state from the single mirror: #mdadm -A /dev/md100 -R /dev/hdX2 #mdadm -A /dev/md101 -R /dev/hdX5 (substiture hdX with the actual device name of the transplanted disk; in any case mdadm has a very useful man page) At this point you should be able to mount md100 and md101 *read-only* and salvage any data you need. Andrea
Re: [gentoo-user] recovering RAID from an old server
On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 16:22:51 +0100, Andrea Conti wrote: md: bindhdg5,1 md: bindhde5,2 md: bindhda5,3 raid1: raid set md101 active with 3 out of 4 mirrors AFAICT this is all you need to know -- you definitely have two software (mdraid) RAID 1 volumes: Agreed, however Iain also said that he tried to mount individual partitions and this failed. This should work with RAID1, so I wonder if something else is at work here; either some sort of logical volumes or a weird filesystem in use. -- Neil Bothwick Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle: The location of all objects cannot be known simultaneously. Corollary: If a lost thing is found, something else will disappear. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] recovering RAID from an old server
On 19 Feb 2010, at 12:15, Iain Buchanan wrote: ... Can I randomly mount partitions read-only or will this screw things up further? If this is unsafe I will have ketchup mustard on my baseball cap. Stroller.
Re: [gentoo-user] recovering RAID from an old server
On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 14:44 +, Stroller wrote: On 19 Feb 2010, at 12:15, Iain Buchanan wrote: ... Can I randomly mount partitions read-only or will this screw things up further? If this is unsafe I will have ketchup mustard on my baseball cap. er... could you translate that? How about dead horse on my baggy green? Should I be able to mount them automatically and let the SW RAID module sort it out or do I have to know how they're tied together beforehand? The message from the kernel is: Linux version 2.4.19-snap (r...@buildsys) (gcc version egcs-2.91.66 19990314/Linux (egcs-1.1.2 release)) #1 Tue Jul 13 20:24:35 PDT 2004 and later there's output from md which is (I assume) the linux software raid module (this is a grep, so there are other messages in between): md: linear personality registered as nr 1 md: raid0 personality registered as nr 2 md: raid1 personality registered as nr 3 md: raid5 personality registered as nr 4 md: spare personality registered as nr 8 md: md driver 0.91.0 MAX_MD_DEVS=256, MD_SB_DISKS=27 md: Autodetecting RAID arrays. md: autorun ... md: ... autorun DONE. md: bindhdg2,1 md: bindhde2,2 md: bindhda2,3 md: hda2's event counter: 039d md: hde2's event counter: 039d md: hdg2's event counter: 039d md: md100: raid array is not clean -- starting background reconstruction md: RAID level 1 does not need chunksize! Continuing anyway. md100: max total readahead window set to 124k md100: 1 data-disks, max readahead per data-disk: 124k raid1: md100, not all disks are operational -- trying to recover array raid1: raid set md100 active with 3 out of 4 mirrors md: updating md100 RAID superblock on device md: hda2 [events: 039e]6(write) hda2's sb offset: 546112 md: recovery thread got woken up ... md: looking for a shared spare drive md100: no spare disk to reconstruct array! -- continuing in degraded mode md: recovery thread finished ... md: hde2 [events: 039e]6(write) hde2's sb offset: 546112 md: hdg2 [events: 039e]6(write) hdg2's sb offset: 546112 md: bindhdg5,1 md: bindhde5,2 md: bindhda5,3 md: hda5's event counter: 03a4 md: hde5's event counter: 03a4 md: hdg5's event counter: 03a4 md: md101: raid array is not clean -- starting background reconstruction md: RAID level 1 does not need chunksize! Continuing anyway. md101: max total readahead window set to 124k md101: 1 data-disks, max readahead per data-disk: 124k raid1: md101, not all disks are operational -- trying to recover array raid1: raid set md101 active with 3 out of 4 mirrors md: updating md101 RAID superblock on device md: hda5 [events: 03a5]6(write) hda5's sb offset: 273024 md: recovery thread got woken up ... md: looking for a shared spare drive md101: no spare disk to reconstruct array! -- continuing in degraded mode md: looking for a shared spare drive md100: no spare disk to reconstruct array! -- continuing in degraded mode md: recovery thread finished ... md: hde5 [events: 03a5]6(write) hde5's sb offset: 273024 md: hdg5 [events: 03a5]6(write) hdg5's sb offset: 273024 XFS mounting filesystem md(9,100) Ending clean XFS mount for filesystem: md(9,100) The partitions look like: 9 100 546112 md100 9 101 273024 md101 34 0 78150744 hdg 34 1 16041 hdg1 34 2 546210 hdg2 34 3 1 hdg3 34 4 76656636 hdg4 34 5 273104 hdg5 34 6 273104 hdg6 33 0 78150744 hde 33 1 16041 hde1 33 2 546210 hde2 33 3 1 hde3 33 4 76656636 hde4 33 5 273104 hde5 33 6 273104 hde6 22 0 78150744 hdc 22 1 16041 hdc1 22 2 546210 hdc2 22 3 1 hdc3 22 4 76656636 hdc4 22 5 273104 hdc5 22 6 273104 hdc6 3 0 78150744 hda 3 1 16041 hda1 3 2 546210 hda2 3 3 1 hda3 3 4 76656636 hda4 3 5 273104 hda5 3 6 273104 hda6 many thanks! -- Iain Buchanan iaindb at netspace dot net dot au By golly, I'm beginning to think Linux really *is* the best thing since sliced bread. -- Vance Petree, Virginia Power
Re: [gentoo-user] recovering RAID from an old server
On Sat, 2010-02-20 at 14:01 +0930, Iain Buchanan wrote:
On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 14:44 +, Stroller wrote:
On 19 Feb 2010, at 12:15, Iain Buchanan wrote:
...
Can I randomly mount partitions read-only or will this screw things up
further?
OK, I've randomly mounted partitions, and now I'm stuck because I don't
know what the original /etc/raidtab was. /proc/mdstat just says:
Personalities : [raid0] [raid1] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [raid10]
unused devices: none
which looks like nothing is used in any RAID set. Autodetect seems not
to be working, perhaps because the ID wasn't set to 0xFD or 253. Each
drive has identical partitions:
Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/hda1 * 1 2 16041+ 83 Linux
/dev/hda2 3 70 546210 83 Linux
/dev/hda3 71 138 5462105 Extended
/dev/hda4 139968276656636 83 Linux
/dev/hda5 71 104 273104+ 83 Linux
/dev/hda6 105 138 273104+ 83 Linux
and /dev/hd[aceg]1 is /boot on each one.
all the other /dev/hd[aceg][2-6] mount says:
mount: unknown filesystem type 'linux_raid_member
obviously this is the raid. But how do I get to it?
All /boots mount ok and are readable with some kernel files and stuff,
however /dev/hdc1 give some errors:
hdc: dma_intr: status=0x51 { DriveReady SeekComplete Error }
hdc: dma_intr: error=0x40 { UncorrectableError }, LBAsect=585, sector=575
hdc: possibly failed opcode: 0x25
end_request: I/O error, dev hdc, sector 575
__ratelimit: 22 callbacks suppressed
Buffer I/O error on device hdc1, logical block 528
Buffer I/O error on device hdc1, logical block 529
Buffer I/O error on device hdc1, logical block 530
Buffer I/O error on device hdc1, logical block 531
Buffer I/O error on device hdc1, logical block 532
Buffer I/O error on device hdc1, logical block 533
Buffer I/O error on device hdc1, logical block 534
Buffer I/O error on device hdc1, logical block 535
Buffer I/O error on device hdc1, logical block 536
Buffer I/O error on device hdc1, logical block 537
so it looks like there's some problems with hdc. Are there any disk
hardware testing tools on the gentoo minimal live cd?
thanks,
--
Iain Buchanan iaindb at netspace dot net dot au
It's simply unbelievable how much energy and creativity people have
invested into creating contradictory, bogus and stupid licenses...
--- Sven Rudolph about licences in debian/non-free.
