Re: Software RAID when it works and when it doesn't

On Sun, 2007-10-14 at 08:50 +1000, Neil Brown wrote: > On Saturday October 13, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Over the past several months I have encountered 3 > > cases where the software RAID didn't work in keeping > > the servers up and running. > > > > In all cases, the failure has been on a sin

Re: RAID 5: weird size results after Grow

Marko Berg wrote: Bill Davidsen wrote: Marko Berg wrote: I added a fourth drive to a RAID 5 array. After some complications related to adding a new HD controller at the same time, and thus changing some device names, I re-created the array and got it working (in the sense "nothing degraded").

Re: mdadm: /dev/sda1 is too small: 0K

Good catch. /dev/sda1 was a scsi device in a former life. Correcting that fixed the problem. Thanks! Dan Williams wrote: > On 10/13/07, Hod Greeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I tried to create a raid device starting with >> >> foo:~ 1032% mdadm --create -l1 -n2 /dev/md1 /dev/sda

Re: Software RAID when it works and when it doesn't

On Saturday October 13, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Over the past several months I have encountered 3 > cases where the software RAID didn't work in keeping > the servers up and running. > > In all cases, the failure has been on a single drive, > yet the whole md device and server become unresponsi

Re: Software RAID when it works and when it doesn't

RAID0 is non redundant so a disk failure will correctly fail the array. Alberto Alonso wrote: Over the past several months I have encountered 3 cases where the software RAID didn't work in keeping the servers up and running. In all cases, the failure has been on a single drive, yet the whole md

Re: mdadm: /dev/sda1 is too small: 0K

On 10/13/07, Hod Greeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > I tried to create a raid device starting with > > foo:~ 1032% mdadm --create -l1 -n2 /dev/md1 /dev/sda1 missing > mdadm: /dev/sda1 is too small: 0K > mdadm: create aborted > Quick sanity check, is /dev/sda1 still a block device node

mdadm: /dev/sda1 is too small: 0K

Hello, I tried to create a raid device starting with foo:~ 1032% mdadm --create -l1 -n2 /dev/md1 /dev/sda1 missing mdadm: /dev/sda1 is too small: 0K mdadm: create aborted Others have seen this problem too. People seemed to think it might be related to the partition id, but I think the issue is

Software RAID when it works and when it doesn't

Over the past several months I have encountered 3 cases where the software RAID didn't work in keeping the servers up and running. In all cases, the failure has been on a single drive, yet the whole md device and server become unresponsive. (usb-storage) In one situation a RAID 0 across 2 USB dri

Kicking the right drive out

I have a need to kick a disk out of a RAID 5 array. I can do a fdisk on 2 out of the 3 devices that form part of the array, so I suspect I know which one is bad. The problem is that mdstat shows the array as follows: md3 : active raid5 sda6[0] sdc6[2] sdb6[1] 960863488 blocks level 5, 64k

Re: RAID 5: weird size results after Grow

Justin Piszcz wrote: On Sat, 13 Oct 2007, Marko Berg wrote: Corey Hickey wrote: Marko Berg wrote: Bill Davidsen wrote: Marko Berg wrote: Any suggestions on how to fix this, or what to investigate next, would be appreciated! I'm not sure what you're trying to "fix" here, everything you po

Re: RAID 5: weird size results after Grow

Marko Berg wrote: Bill Davidsen wrote: Marko Berg wrote: Any suggestions on how to fix this, or what to investigate next, would be appreciated! I'm not sure what you're trying to "fix" here, everything you posted looks sane. I'm trying to find the missing 300 GB that, as df reports, are no

Re: RAID 5: weird size results after Grow

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007, Marko Berg wrote: Corey Hickey wrote: Marko Berg wrote: Bill Davidsen wrote: Marko Berg wrote: Any suggestions on how to fix this, or what to investigate next, would be appreciated! I'm not sure what you're trying to "fix" here, everything you posted looks sane. I

Re: RAID 5: weird size results after Grow

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007, Marko Berg wrote: Bill Davidsen wrote: Marko Berg wrote: I added a fourth drive to a RAID 5 array. After some complications related to adding a new HD controller at the same time, and thus changing some device names, I re-created the array and got it working (in the sen

Re: RAID 5: weird size results after Grow

Corey Hickey wrote: Marko Berg wrote: Bill Davidsen wrote: Marko Berg wrote: Any suggestions on how to fix this, or what to investigate next, would be appreciated! I'm not sure what you're trying to "fix" here, everything you posted looks sane. I'm trying to find the missing 300 GB that,

Re: RAID 5: weird size results after Grow

Bill Davidsen wrote: Marko Berg wrote: I added a fourth drive to a RAID 5 array. After some complications related to adding a new HD controller at the same time, and thus changing some device names, I re-created the array and got it working (in the sense "nothing degraded"). But size results a

Re: RAID 5: weird size results after Grow

Marko Berg wrote: Hi folks, I added a fourth drive to a RAID 5 array. After some complications related to adding a new HD controller at the same time, and thus changing some device names, I re-created the array and got it working (in the sense "nothing degraded"). But size results are weird.

RAID 5: weird size results after Grow

Hi folks, I added a fourth drive to a RAID 5 array. After some complications related to adding a new HD controller at the same time, and thus changing some device names, I re-created the array and got it working (in the sense "nothing degraded"). But size results are weird. Each component par