Re: Raid5 assemble after dual sata port failure
Chris Eddington wrote: > Key questions: > - I assume ddrescue will do a much better job of correcting errors when > imaging a disk? My colleague used ghost which is just a copy tool. I > don't understand the capabilities of ddrescue on raid partitions that well. ddrescue should do a *much* better job. It knows nothing about raid and operates on the underlying device. It retries bad sectors in a clever manner. > - fdisk -l reports that all the drives are exactly the same size with > exactly the same # sectors shown below. I don't quite follow the > hpa_resize issue, but it appears the drives don't have hidden HPA > sectors - I guess? Note that sdc is the original drive, where sda, sdb, > and sdd are the imaged drives. > > So what do you recommend to do first? Should I try xfs_repair on the > ghost copy, No or just re-copy myself using ddrescue? Yes. Are there special > settings to ddrescue I should consider to verify/correct potential HPA > changes? Ideally just ddrescue the entire device to a file and use loopback. For the faulty disk then if you have space, make a second copy and xfs_repair using that. If it fails then you can easily re-image the good disks but it may not be so easy to re-image the bad one. David - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Raid5 assemble after dual sata port failure
Yes, this is exactly the kind of symptoms I've experienced. I was losing a drive here and there every couple of months (mostly the last two drives sdc and sdd) which I though were cable problems (shut down, re-plug the cables and restart and it would always work, with add/rebuild the 4th disk). But now my guess is the motherboard chipset is overheating (or maybe the drives). I have an MSI K9N platinum AMD/Nividia chipset that has 4 raid ports + 2 raid ports from a separate chip. The mb chipset comes with a wimpy heatsink on it and it is very hot to the touch. I had been planning to replace it but never got around to it. I've been out of town this week so I had someone image all three disks. He used ghost disk image application. He said the third disk reported media problems, and about 5% of the data was not fixable (sector errors). Using these three copied drives, the array comes up and xfs_repair still reports a bunch of inode repairs as before, but it is a bit different, maybe even a reduction in losses. But most important is the hpa_sector errors no longer occur. Key questions: - I assume ddrescue will do a much better job of correcting errors when imaging a disk? My colleague used ghost which is just a copy tool. I don't understand the capabilities of ddrescue on raid partitions that well. - fdisk -l reports that all the drives are exactly the same size with exactly the same # sectors shown below. I don't quite follow the hpa_resize issue, but it appears the drives don't have hidden HPA sectors - I guess? Note that sdc is the original drive, where sda, sdb, and sdd are the imaged drives. So what do you recommend to do first? Should I try xfs_repair on the ghost copy, or just re-copy myself using ddrescue? Are there special settings to ddrescue I should consider to verify/correct potential HPA changes? Thks, Chris Disk /dev/sda: 500.1 GB, 500107862016 bytes /dev/sda1 1 60801 488384001 fd Linux raid autodetect Disk /dev/sdb: 500.1 GB, 500107862016 bytes /dev/sdb1 1 60801 488384001 fd Linux raid autodetect Disk /dev/sdc: 500.1 GB, 500107862016 bytes /dev/sdc1 1 60801 488384001 fd Linux raid autodetect Disk /dev/sdd: 500.1 GB, 500107862016 bytes /dev/sdd1 1 60801 488384001 fd Linux raid autodetect Bill Davidsen wrote: David Greaves wrote: Chris Eddington wrote: Yes, there is some kind of media error message in dmesg, below. It is not random, it happens at exactly the same moments in each xfs_repair -n run. Nov 11 09:48:25 altair kernel: [37043.300691] res 51/40:00:01:00:00/00:00:00:00:00/e1 Emask 0x9 (media error) Nov 11 09:48:25 altair kernel: [37043.304326] ata4.00: ata_hpa_resize 1: sectors = 976773168, hpa_sectors = 976773168 Nov 11 09:48:25 altair kernel: [37043.307672] ata4.00: ata_hpa_resize 1: sectors = 976773168, hpa_sectors = 976773168 I'm not sure what an ata_hpa_resize error is... HPA = Hardware Protected Area. By any chance is this disk partitioned such that the partition size includes the HPA? If it does, this sounds at least familiar, this mailing list post may get you started: http://osdir.com/ml/linux.ataraid/2005-09/msg2.html In any case, run "fdisk -l" and look at the claimed total disk size and the end point of the last partition. The HPA is not included in the "disk size" so nothing should be trying to do so. It probably explains the problems you've been having with the raid not 'just recovering' though. I saw this: http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-kernel-70/sata-issues-568894/ May be the same thing. Let us know what fdisk reports. What does smartctl say about your drive? IMO the spare drive is no longer useful for data recovery - you may want to use ddrescue to try and copy this drive to the spare drive. David PS Don't get the ddrescue parameters the wrong way round if you go that route... - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Raid5 assemble after dual sata port failure
David Greaves wrote: Chris Eddington wrote: Yes, there is some kind of media error message in dmesg, below. It is not random, it happens at exactly the same moments in each xfs_repair -n run. Nov 11 09:48:25 altair kernel: [37043.300691] res 51/40:00:01:00:00/00:00:00:00:00/e1 Emask 0x9 (media error) Nov 11 09:48:25 altair kernel: [37043.304326] ata4.00: ata_hpa_resize 1: sectors = 976773168, hpa_sectors = 976773168 Nov 11 09:48:25 altair kernel: [37043.307672] ata4.00: ata_hpa_resize 1: sectors = 976773168, hpa_sectors = 976773168 I'm not sure what an ata_hpa_resize error is... HPA = Hardware Protected Area. By any chance is this disk partitioned such that the partition size includes the HPA? If it does, this sounds at least familiar, this mailing list post may get you started: http://osdir.com/ml/linux.ataraid/2005-09/msg2.html In any case, run "fdisk -l" and look at the claimed total disk size and the end point of the last partition. The HPA is not included in the "disk size" so nothing should be trying to do so. It probably explains the problems you've been having with the raid not 'just recovering' though. I saw this: http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-kernel-70/sata-issues-568894/ May be the same thing. Let us know what fdisk reports. What does smartctl say about your drive? IMO the spare drive is no longer useful for data recovery - you may want to use ddrescue to try and copy this drive to the spare drive. David PS Don't get the ddrescue parameters the wrong way round if you go that route... - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CTO TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Raid5 assemble after dual sata port failure
Chris Eddington wrote: > Yes, there is some kind of media error message in dmesg, below. It is > not random, it happens at exactly the same moments in each xfs_repair -n > run. > Nov 11 09:48:25 altair kernel: [37043.300691] res > 51/40:00:01:00:00/00:00:00:00:00/e1 Emask 0x9 (media error) > Nov 11 09:48:25 altair kernel: [37043.304326] ata4.00: ata_hpa_resize 1: > sectors = 976773168, hpa_sectors = 976773168 > Nov 11 09:48:25 altair kernel: [37043.307672] ata4.00: ata_hpa_resize 1: > sectors = 976773168, hpa_sectors = 976773168 I'm not sure what an ata_hpa_resize error is... It probably explains the problems you've been having with the raid not 'just recovering' though. I saw this: http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-kernel-70/sata-issues-568894/ What does smartctl say about your drive? IMO the spare drive is no longer useful for data recovery - you may want to use ddrescue to try and copy this drive to the spare drive. David PS Don't get the ddrescue parameters the wrong way round if you go that route... - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Raid5 assemble after dual sata port failure
Yes, there is some kind of media error message in dmesg, below. It is not random, it happens at exactly the same moments in each xfs_repair -n run. Nov 11 09:48:25 altair kernel: [37043.300691] res 51/40:00:01:00:00/00:00:00:00:00/e1 Emask 0x9 (media error) Nov 11 09:48:25 altair kernel: [37043.304326] ata4.00: ata_hpa_resize 1: sectors = 976773168, hpa_sectors = 976773168 Nov 11 09:48:25 altair kernel: [37043.307672] ata4.00: ata_hpa_resize 1: sectors = 976773168, hpa_sectors = 976773168 Nov 11 09:48:25 altair kernel: [37043.307676] ata4.00: configured for UDMA/133 Nov 11 09:48:25 altair kernel: [37043.307684] ata4: EH complete Nov 11 09:48:27 altair kernel: [37043.747838] SCSI device sdd: 976773168 512-byte hdwr sectors (500108 MB) Nov 11 09:48:27 altair kernel: [37043.747861] sdd: Write Protect is off Nov 11 09:48:27 altair kernel: [37043.747878] SCSI device sdd: write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled, doesn't support DPO or FUA Nov 11 09:49:19 altair kernel: [37065.709216] res 51/40:00:0f:00:00/00:00:00:00:00/ef Emask 0x9 (media error) Nov 11 09:49:19 altair kernel: [37065.720197] ata4.00: ata_hpa_resize 1: sectors = 976773168, hpa_sectors = 976773168 Nov 11 09:49:19 altair kernel: [37065.732188] ata4.00: ata_hpa_resize 1: sectors = 976773168, hpa_sectors = 976773168 Nov 11 09:49:19 altair kernel: [37065.732192] ata4.00: configured for UDMA/133 Nov 11 09:49:19 altair kernel: [37065.732199] ata4: EH complete Nov 11 09:49:21 altair kernel: [37067.206243] res 51/40:00:0f:00:00/00:00:00:00:00/ef Emask 0x9 (media error) Nov 11 09:49:21 altair kernel: [37067.210721] ata4.00: ata_hpa_resize 1: sectors = 976773168, hpa_sectors = 976773168 Nov 11 09:49:21 altair kernel: [37067.215727] ata4.00: ata_hpa_resize 1: sectors = 976773168, hpa_sectors = 976773168 Nov 11 09:49:21 altair kernel: [37067.215731] ata4.00: configured for UDMA/133 Nov 11 09:49:21 altair kernel: [37067.215738] ata4: EH complete Nov 11 09:49:24 altair kernel: [37068.107825] res 51/40:00:0f:00:00/00:00:00:00:00/ef Emask 0x9 (media error) Nov 11 09:49:24 altair kernel: [37068.112730] ata4.00: ata_hpa_resize 1: sectors = 976773168, hpa_sectors = 976773168 Nov 11 09:49:24 altair kernel: [37068.117732] ata4.00: ata_hpa_resize 1: sectors = 976773168, hpa_sectors = 976773168 Nov 11 09:49:24 altair kernel: [37068.117736] ata4.00: configured for UDMA/133 Nov 11 09:49:24 altair kernel: [37068.117740] ata4: EH complete Nov 11 09:49:26 altair kernel: [37069.095665] res 51/40:00:0f:00:00/00:00:00:00:00/ef Emask 0x9 (media error) Nov 11 09:49:26 altair kernel: [37069.100156] ata4.00: ata_hpa_resize 1: sectors = 976773168, hpa_sectors = 976773168 Nov 11 09:49:26 altair kernel: [37069.105148] ata4.00: ata_hpa_resize 1: sectors = 976773168, hpa_sectors = 976773168 Nov 11 09:49:26 altair kernel: [37069.105152] ata4.00: configured for UDMA/133 Nov 11 09:49:26 altair kernel: [37069.105159] ata4: EH complete Nov 11 09:49:28 altair kernel: [37069.996842] res 51/40:00:0f:00:00/00:00:00:00:00/ef Emask 0x9 (media error) Nov 11 09:49:28 altair kernel: [37070.000912] ata4.00: ata_hpa_resize 1: sectors = 976773168, hpa_sectors = 976773168 Nov 11 09:49:28 altair kernel: [37070.005916] ata4.00: ata_hpa_resize 1: sectors = 976773168, hpa_sectors = 976773168 Nov 11 09:49:28 altair kernel: [37070.005919] ata4.00: configured for UDMA/133 Nov 11 09:49:28 altair kernel: [37070.005924] ata4: EH complete Nov 11 09:49:31 altair kernel: [37070.983850] res 51/40:00:0f:00:00/00:00:00:00:00/ef Emask 0x9 (media error) Nov 11 09:49:31 altair kernel: [37070.987914] ata4.00: ata_hpa_resize 1: sectors = 976773168, hpa_sectors = 976773168 Nov 11 09:49:31 altair kernel: [37070.992917] ata4.00: ata_hpa_resize 1: sectors = 976773168, hpa_sectors = 976773168 Nov 11 09:49:31 altair kernel: [37070.992920] ata4.00: configured for UDMA/133 Nov 11 09:49:31 altair kernel: [37070.992935] ata4: EH complete Nov 11 09:49:31 altair kernel: [37071.000639] SCSI device sdd: 976773168 512-byte hdwr sectors (500108 MB) Nov 11 09:49:31 altair kernel: [37071.000719] sdd: Write Protect is off Nov 11 09:49:31 altair kernel: [37071.000745] SCSI device sdd: write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled, doesn't support DPO or FUA Nov 11 09:49:31 altair kernel: [37071.000762] SCSI device sdd: 976773168 512-byte hdwr sectors (500108 MB) Nov 11 09:49:31 altair kernel: [37071.000770] sdd: Write Protect is off Nov 11 09:49:31 altair kernel: [37071.000788] SCSI device sdd: write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled, doesn't support DPO or FUA Nov 11 09:49:33 altair kernel: [37072.213749] res 51/40:00:0f:00:00/00:00:00:00:00/ef Emask 0x9 (media error) Nov 11 09:49:33 altair kernel: [37072.218227] ata4.00: ata_hpa_resize 1: sectors = 976773168, hpa_sectors = 976773168 Nov 11 09:49:33 altair kernel: [37072.223231] ata4.00: ata_hpa_resize 1: sectors = 976773168, hpa_sectors = 976773168 Nov 11 09:49:33 altair
Re: Raid5 assemble after dual sata port failure
Chris Eddington wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks for the pointer on xfs_repair -n , it actually tells me something > (some listed below) but I'm not sure what it means but there seems to be > a lot of data loss. One complication is I see an error message in ata6, > so I moved the disks around thinking it was a flaky sata port, but I see > the error again on ata4 so it seems to follow the disk. But it happens > exactly at the same time during xfs_repair sequence, so I don't think it > is a flaky disk. Does dmesg have any info/sata errors? xfs_repair will have problems if the disk is bad. You may want to image the disk (possibly onto the 'spare'?) if it is bad. > I'll go to the xfs mailing list on this. Very good idea :) > Is there a way to be sure the disk order is right? The order looks right to me. xfs_repair wouldn't recognise it as well as it does if the order was wrong. > not way out of wack since I'm seeing so much from xfs_repair. Also > since I've been moving the disks around, I want to be sure I have the > right order. Bear in mind that -n stops the repair fixing a problem. Then as the 'repair' proceeds it becomes very confused by problems that should have been fixed. This is evident in the superblock issue (which also probably explains the failed mount). > > Is there a way to try restoring using the other disk? No the event count was very out of date. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Raid5 assemble after dual sata port failure
Hi, Thanks for the pointer on xfs_repair -n , it actually tells me something (some listed below) but I'm not sure what it means but there seems to be a lot of data loss. One complication is I see an error message in ata6, so I moved the disks around thinking it was a flaky sata port, but I see the error again on ata4 so it seems to follow the disk. But it happens exactly at the same time during xfs_repair sequence, so I don't think it is a flaky disk. I'll go to the xfs mailing list on this. Is there a way to be sure the disk order is right? What I mean is when using --force does is try to figure out the right order based on best possible recognition of something there, or does it just take the existing disk order and assemble them? I want to be sure that this is not way out of wack since I'm seeing so much from xfs_repair. Also since I've been moving the disks around, I want to be sure I have the right order. Is there a way to try restoring using the other disk? Thks, Chris - creating 4 worker thread(s) Phase 1 - find and verify superblock... - reporting progress in intervals of 15 minutes Phase 2 - using internal log - scan filesystem freespace and inode maps... bad on-disk superblock 2 - inconsistent filesystem geometry in realtime filesystem component primary/secondary superblock 2 conflict - AG superblock geometry info conflicts with filesystem geometry would reset bad sb for ag 2 bad uncorrected agheader 2, skipping ag... bad on-disk superblock 24 - bad magic number primary/secondary superblock 24 conflict - AG superblock geometry info conflicts with filesystem geometry bad flags field in superblock 24 bad shared version number in superblock 24 bad inode alignment field in superblock 24 bad stripe unit/width fields in superblock 24 bad log/data device sector size fields in superblock 24 bad magic # 0xc486a1e7 for agi 24 bad version # 127171049 for agi 24 bad sequence # 606867126 for agi 24 bad length # -48052605 for agi 24, should be 11446496 would reset bad sb for ag 24 would reset bad agi for ag 24 bad uncorrected agheader 24, skipping ag... - 10:49:34: scanning filesystem freespace - 30 of 32 allocation groups done - found root inode chunk Phase 3 - for each AG... - scan (but don't clear) agi unlinked lists... error following ag 24 unlinked list - 10:49:34: scanning agi unlinked lists - 32 of 32 allocation groups done - process known inodes and perform inode discovery... - agno = 0 - agno = 1 - agno = 2 - agno = 3 - agno = 4 imap claims a free inode 268435719 is in use, would correct imap and clear inode bad nblocks 23 for inode 268435723, would reset to 13 corrupt block 0 in directory inode 259 would junk block no . entry for directory 259 no .. entry for directory 259 - agno = 5 - agno = 6 - agno = 7 - agno = 8 attribute entry 0 in attr block 0, inode 2147610149 has bad name (namelen = 0) problem with attribute contents in inode 2147610149 would clear attr fork bad nblocks 11 for inode 2147610149, would reset to 10 bad anextents 1 for inode 2147610149, would reset to 0 attribute entry 0 in attr block 0, inode 2147610376 has bad name (namelen = 0) problem with attribute contents in inode 2147610376 would clear attr fork bad nblocks 13 for inode 2147610376, would reset to 12 bad anextents 1 for inode 2147610376, would reset to 0 - agno = 9 - agno = 10 - agno = 11 imap claims in-use inode 2173744652 is free, would correct imap data fork in ino 2423071372 claims free block 201330859 data fork in ino 2423071372 claims free block 201330860 . would have reset inode 4090071559 nlinks from 5 to 3 would have reset inode 4130446080 nlinks from 6 to 4 would have reset inode 4130446132 nlinks from 5 to 4 would have reset inode 4130509338 nlinks from 21 to 19 would have reset inode 4136546816 nlinks from 5 to 4 would have reset inode 4136546819 nlinks from 5 to 4 would have reset inode 4136546822 nlinks from 5 to 4 would have reset inode 4136546825 nlinks from 5 to 4 would have reset inode 4168420144 nlinks from 7 to 4 - 10:54:24: verify link counts - 191040 of 202304 inodes done No modify flag set, skipping filesystem flush and exiting. David Greaves wrote: Ok - it looks like the raid array is up. There will have been an event count mismatch which is why you needed --force. This may well have caused some (hopefully minor) corruption. FWIW, xfs_check is almost never worth running :) (It runs out of memory easily). xfs_repair -n is much better. What does the end of dmesg say after trying to mount the fs? Also try: xfs_repair -n -L I think you then have 2 options: * xfs_repair -L This may well lose data that was being written as the drives crashed. * contact the xfs mailing list David Chris Eddington wrote: Hi David, I ran xfs_check and get this: ERROR: The filesystem has valuable metadata changes in
Re: Raid5 assemble after dual sata port failure
Ok - it looks like the raid array is up. There will have been an event count mismatch which is why you needed --force. This may well have caused some (hopefully minor) corruption. FWIW, xfs_check is almost never worth running :) (It runs out of memory easily). xfs_repair -n is much better. What does the end of dmesg say after trying to mount the fs? Also try: xfs_repair -n -L I think you then have 2 options: * xfs_repair -L This may well lose data that was being written as the drives crashed. * contact the xfs mailing list David Chris Eddington wrote: > Hi David, > > I ran xfs_check and get this: > ERROR: The filesystem has valuable metadata changes in a log which needs to > be replayed. Mount the filesystem to replay the log, and unmount it before > re-running xfs_check. If you are unable to mount the filesystem, then use > the xfs_repair -L option to destroy the log and attempt a repair. > Note that destroying the log may cause corruption -- please attempt a mount > of the filesystem before doing this. > > After mounting (which fails) and re-running xfs_check it gives the same > message. > > The array info details are below and seems it is running correctly ?? I > interpret the message above as actually a good sign - seems that > xfs_check sees the filesystem but the log file and maybe the most > currently written data is corrupted or will be lost. But I'd like to > hear some advice/guidance before doing anything permanent with > xfs_repair. I also would like to confirm somehow that the array is in > the right order, etc. Appreciate your feedback. > > Thks, > Chris > > > > > cat /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf > DEVICE /dev/sda1 /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdc1 /dev/sdd1 > ARRAY /dev/md0 level=raid5 num-devices=4 > UUID=bc74c21c:9655c1c6:ba6cc37a:df870496 > MAILADDR root > > cat /proc/mdstat > Personalities : [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] > md0 : active raid5 sda1[0] sdd1[2] sdb1[1] > 1465151808 blocks level 5, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [4/3] [UUU_] > unused devices: > > mdadm -D /dev/md0 > /dev/md0: >Version : 00.90.03 > Creation Time : Sun Nov 5 14:25:01 2006 > Raid Level : raid5 > Array Size : 1465151808 (1397.28 GiB 1500.32 GB) >Device Size : 488383936 (465.76 GiB 500.11 GB) > Raid Devices : 4 > Total Devices : 3 > Preferred Minor : 0 >Persistence : Superblock is persistent > >Update Time : Fri Nov 9 16:26:31 2007 > State : clean, degraded > Active Devices : 3 > Working Devices : 3 > Failed Devices : 0 > Spare Devices : 0 > > Layout : left-symmetric > Chunk Size : 64K > > UUID : bc74c21c:9655c1c6:ba6cc37a:df870496 > Events : 0.4880384 > >Number Major Minor RaidDevice State > 0 810 active sync /dev/sda1 > 1 8 171 active sync /dev/sdb1 > 2 8 492 active sync /dev/sdd1 > 3 003 removed > > > > Chris Eddington wrote: >> Thanks David. >> >> I've had cable/port failures in the past and after re-adding the >> drive, the order changed - I'm not sure why, but I noticed it sometime >> ago but don't remember the exact order. >> >> My initial attempt to assemble, it came up with only two drives in the >> array. Then I tried assembling with --force and that brought up 3 of >> the drives. At that point I thought I was good, so I tried mount >> /dev/md0 and it failed. Would that have written to the disk? I'm >> using XFS. >> >> After that, I tried assembling with different drive orders on the >> command line, i.e. mdadm -Av --force /dev/md0 /dev/sda1, ... thinking >> that the order might not be right. >> >> At the moment I can't access the machine, but I'll try fsck -n and >> send you the other info later this evening. >> >> Many thanks, >> Chris >> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Raid5 assemble after dual sata port failure
Hi David, I ran xfs_check and get this: ERROR: The filesystem has valuable metadata changes in a log which needs to be replayed. Mount the filesystem to replay the log, and unmount it before re-running xfs_check. If you are unable to mount the filesystem, then use the xfs_repair -L option to destroy the log and attempt a repair. Note that destroying the log may cause corruption -- please attempt a mount of the filesystem before doing this. After mounting (which fails) and re-running xfs_check it gives the same message. The array info details are below and seems it is running correctly ?? I interpret the message above as actually a good sign - seems that xfs_check sees the filesystem but the log file and maybe the most currently written data is corrupted or will be lost. But I'd like to hear some advice/guidance before doing anything permanent with xfs_repair. I also would like to confirm somehow that the array is in the right order, etc. Appreciate your feedback. Thks, Chris cat /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf DEVICE /dev/sda1 /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdc1 /dev/sdd1 ARRAY /dev/md0 level=raid5 num-devices=4 UUID=bc74c21c:9655c1c6:ba6cc37a:df870496 MAILADDR root cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] md0 : active raid5 sda1[0] sdd1[2] sdb1[1] 1465151808 blocks level 5, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [4/3] [UUU_] unused devices: mdadm -D /dev/md0 /dev/md0: Version : 00.90.03 Creation Time : Sun Nov 5 14:25:01 2006 Raid Level : raid5 Array Size : 1465151808 (1397.28 GiB 1500.32 GB) Device Size : 488383936 (465.76 GiB 500.11 GB) Raid Devices : 4 Total Devices : 3 Preferred Minor : 0 Persistence : Superblock is persistent Update Time : Fri Nov 9 16:26:31 2007 State : clean, degraded Active Devices : 3 Working Devices : 3 Failed Devices : 0 Spare Devices : 0 Layout : left-symmetric Chunk Size : 64K UUID : bc74c21c:9655c1c6:ba6cc37a:df870496 Events : 0.4880384 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State 0 810 active sync /dev/sda1 1 8 171 active sync /dev/sdb1 2 8 492 active sync /dev/sdd1 3 003 removed Chris Eddington wrote: Thanks David. I've had cable/port failures in the past and after re-adding the drive, the order changed - I'm not sure why, but I noticed it sometime ago but don't remember the exact order. My initial attempt to assemble, it came up with only two drives in the array. Then I tried assembling with --force and that brought up 3 of the drives. At that point I thought I was good, so I tried mount /dev/md0 and it failed. Would that have written to the disk? I'm using XFS. After that, I tried assembling with different drive orders on the command line, i.e. mdadm -Av --force /dev/md0 /dev/sda1, ... thinking that the order might not be right. At the moment I can't access the machine, but I'll try fsck -n and send you the other info later this evening. Many thanks, Chris - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Raid5 assemble after dual sata port failure
Thanks David. I've had cable/port failures in the past and after re-adding the drive, the order changed - I'm not sure why, but I noticed it sometime ago but don't remember the exact order. My initial attempt to assemble, it came up with only two drives in the array. Then I tried assembling with --force and that brought up 3 of the drives. At that point I thought I was good, so I tried mount /dev/md0 and it failed. Would that have written to the disk? I'm using XFS. After that, I tried assembling with different drive orders on the command line, i.e. mdadm -Av --force /dev/md0 /dev/sda1, ... thinking that the order might not be right. At the moment I can't access the machine, but I'll try fsck -n and send you the other info later this evening. Many thanks, Chris David Greaves wrote: Chris Eddington wrote: Hi, Hi While on vacation I had one SATA port/cable fail, and then four hours later a second one fail. After fixing/moving the SATA ports, I can reboot and all drives seem to be OK now, but when assembled it won't recognize the filesystem. That's unusual - if the array comes back then you should be OK. In general if two devices fail then there is a real data loss risk. However if the drives are good and there was just a cable glitch, then unless you're unlucky it's usually fsck fixable. I see mdadm: /dev/md0 has been started with 3 drives (out of 4). which means it's now up and running. And: sda1Events : 0.4880374 sdb1Events : 0.4880374 sdc1Events : 0.4857597 sdd1Events : 0.4880374 so sdc1 is way out of date... we'll add/resync that when everything else is working. but: After futzing around with assemble options like --force and disk order I couldn't get it to work. Let me check... what commands did you use? Just 'assemble' - which doesn't care about disk order - or did you try to re-'create' the array - which does care about disk order and leads us down a different path... err, scratch that: Creation Time : Sun Nov 5 14:25:01 2006 OK, it was created a year ago... so you did use assemble. It is slightly odd to see that the drive order is: /dev/mapper/sda1 /dev/mapper/sdb1 /dev/mapper/sdd1 /dev/mapper/sdc1 Usually people just create them in order. Have you done any fsck's that involve a write? What filesystem are you running? What does your 'fsck -n' (readonly) report? Also, please report the results of: cat /proc/mdadm mdadm -D /dev/md0 cat /etc/mdadm.conf David - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Raid5 assemble after dual sata port failure
Chris Eddington wrote: > > Hi, Hi > > While on vacation I had one SATA port/cable fail, and then four hours > later a second one fail. After fixing/moving the SATA ports, I can > reboot and all drives seem to be OK now, but when assembled it won't > recognize the filesystem. That's unusual - if the array comes back then you should be OK. In general if two devices fail then there is a real data loss risk. However if the drives are good and there was just a cable glitch, then unless you're unlucky it's usually fsck fixable. I see mdadm: /dev/md0 has been started with 3 drives (out of 4). which means it's now up and running. And: sda1Events : 0.4880374 sdb1Events : 0.4880374 sdc1Events : 0.4857597 sdd1Events : 0.4880374 so sdc1 is way out of date... we'll add/resync that when everything else is working. but: > After futzing around with assemble options > like --force and disk order I couldn't get it to work. Let me check... what commands did you use? Just 'assemble' - which doesn't care about disk order - or did you try to re-'create' the array - which does care about disk order and leads us down a different path... err, scratch that: > Creation Time : Sun Nov 5 14:25:01 2006 OK, it was created a year ago... so you did use assemble. It is slightly odd to see that the drive order is: /dev/mapper/sda1 /dev/mapper/sdb1 /dev/mapper/sdd1 /dev/mapper/sdc1 Usually people just create them in order. Have you done any fsck's that involve a write? What filesystem are you running? What does your 'fsck -n' (readonly) report? Also, please report the results of: cat /proc/mdadm mdadm -D /dev/md0 cat /etc/mdadm.conf David - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Raid5 assemble after dual sata port failure
Hi, While on vacation I had one SATA port/cable fail, and then four hours later a second one fail. After fixing/moving the SATA ports, I can reboot and all drives seem to be OK now, but when assembled it won't recognize the filesystem. After futzing around with assemble options like --force and disk order I couldn't get it to work. Appreciate if someone can provide pointers on how to proceed. Here's the latest state of the array. My log shows that /dev/sdc1 failed first and I'm using mdadm v2.5.6 on Ubuntu Linux. Thanks much, Chris mdadm -Av /dev/md0 mdadm: looking for devices for /dev/md0 mdadm: /dev/sda1 is identified as a member of /dev/md0, slot 0. mdadm: /dev/sdb1 is identified as a member of /dev/md0, slot 1. mdadm: /dev/sdc1 is identified as a member of /dev/md0, slot 3. mdadm: /dev/sdd1 is identified as a member of /dev/md0, slot 2. mdadm: added /dev/sdb1 to /dev/md0 as 1 mdadm: added /dev/sdd1 to /dev/md0 as 2 mdadm: added /dev/sdc1 to /dev/md0 as 3 mdadm: added /dev/sda1 to /dev/md0 as 0 mdadm: /dev/md0 has been started with 3 drives (out of 4). mdadm -E /dev/sd[a-d]1 /dev/sda1: Magic : a92b4efc Version : 00.90.03 UUID : bc74c21c:9655c1c6:ba6cc37a:df870496 Creation Time : Sun Nov 5 14:25:01 2006 Raid Level : raid5 Device Size : 488383936 (465.76 GiB 500.11 GB) Array Size : 1465151808 (1397.28 GiB 1500.32 GB) Raid Devices : 4 Total Devices : 3 Preferred Minor : 0 Update Time : Wed Nov 7 12:02:50 2007 State : clean Active Devices : 3 Working Devices : 3 Failed Devices : 1 Spare Devices : 0 Checksum : 401c33e0 - correct Events : 0.4880374 Layout : left-symmetric Chunk Size : 64K Number Major Minor RaidDevice State this 0 25400 active sync /dev/mapper/sda1 0 0 25400 active sync /dev/mapper/sda1 1 1 25411 active sync /dev/mapper/sdb1 2 2 25422 active sync /dev/mapper/sdd1 3 3 003 faulty removed /dev/sdb1: Magic : a92b4efc Version : 00.90.03 UUID : bc74c21c:9655c1c6:ba6cc37a:df870496 Creation Time : Sun Nov 5 14:25:01 2006 Raid Level : raid5 Device Size : 488383936 (465.76 GiB 500.11 GB) Array Size : 1465151808 (1397.28 GiB 1500.32 GB) Raid Devices : 4 Total Devices : 3 Preferred Minor : 0 Update Time : Wed Nov 7 12:02:50 2007 State : clean Active Devices : 3 Working Devices : 3 Failed Devices : 1 Spare Devices : 0 Checksum : 401c33e3 - correct Events : 0.4880374 Layout : left-symmetric Chunk Size : 64K Number Major Minor RaidDevice State this 1 25411 active sync /dev/mapper/sdb1 0 0 25400 active sync /dev/mapper/sda1 1 1 25411 active sync /dev/mapper/sdb1 2 2 25422 active sync /dev/mapper/sdd1 3 3 003 faulty removed /dev/sdc1: Magic : a92b4efc Version : 00.90.03 UUID : bc74c21c:9655c1c6:ba6cc37a:df870496 Creation Time : Sun Nov 5 14:25:01 2006 Raid Level : raid5 Device Size : 488383936 (465.76 GiB 500.11 GB) Array Size : 1465151808 (1397.28 GiB 1500.32 GB) Raid Devices : 4 Total Devices : 4 Preferred Minor : 0 Update Time : Mon Nov 5 13:31:00 2007 State : active Active Devices : 4 Working Devices : 4 Failed Devices : 0 Spare Devices : 0 Checksum : 3fced5a3 - correct Events : 0.4857597 Layout : left-symmetric Chunk Size : 64K Number Major Minor RaidDevice State this 3 25433 active sync /dev/mapper/sdc1 0 0 25400 active sync /dev/mapper/sda1 1 1 25411 active sync /dev/mapper/sdb1 2 2 25422 active sync /dev/mapper/sdd1 3 3 25433 active sync /dev/mapper/sdc1 /dev/sdd1: Magic : a92b4efc Version : 00.90.03 UUID : bc74c21c:9655c1c6:ba6cc37a:df870496 Creation Time : Sun Nov 5 14:25:01 2006 Raid Level : raid5 Device Size : 488383936 (465.76 GiB 500.11 GB) Array Size : 1465151808 (1397.28 GiB 1500.32 GB) Raid Devices : 4 Total Devices : 3 Preferred Minor : 0 Update Time : Wed Nov 7 12:02:50 2007 State : clean Active Devices : 3 Working Devices : 3 Failed Devices : 1 Spare Devices : 0 Checksum : 401c33e6 - correct Events : 0.4880374 Layout : left-symmetric Chunk Size : 64K Number Major Minor RaidDevice State this 2 25422 active sync /dev/mapper/sdd1 0 0 25400 active sync /dev/mapper/s
Raid5 assemble after dual sata port failure
Hi, While on vacation I had one SATA port/cable fail, and then four hours later a second one fail. After fixing/moving the SATA ports, I can reboot and all drives seem to be OK now, but when assembled it won't recognize the filesystem. After futzing around with assemble options like --force and disk order I couldn't get it to work. Appreciate if someone can provide pointers on how to proceed. Here's the latest state of the array. My log shows that /dev/sdc1 failed first and I'm using mdadm v2.5.6 on Ubuntu Linux. Thanks much, Chris mdadm -Av /dev/md0 mdadm: looking for devices for /dev/md0 mdadm: /dev/sda1 is identified as a member of /dev/md0, slot 0. mdadm: /dev/sdb1 is identified as a member of /dev/md0, slot 1. mdadm: /dev/sdc1 is identified as a member of /dev/md0, slot 3. mdadm: /dev/sdd1 is identified as a member of /dev/md0, slot 2. mdadm: added /dev/sdb1 to /dev/md0 as 1 mdadm: added /dev/sdd1 to /dev/md0 as 2 mdadm: added /dev/sdc1 to /dev/md0 as 3 mdadm: added /dev/sda1 to /dev/md0 as 0 mdadm: /dev/md0 has been started with 3 drives (out of 4). mdadm -E /dev/sd[a-d]1 /dev/sda1: Magic : a92b4efc Version : 00.90.03 UUID : bc74c21c:9655c1c6:ba6cc37a:df870496 Creation Time : Sun Nov 5 14:25:01 2006 Raid Level : raid5 Device Size : 488383936 (465.76 GiB 500.11 GB) Array Size : 1465151808 (1397.28 GiB 1500.32 GB) Raid Devices : 4 Total Devices : 3 Preferred Minor : 0 Update Time : Wed Nov 7 12:02:50 2007 State : clean Active Devices : 3 Working Devices : 3 Failed Devices : 1 Spare Devices : 0 Checksum : 401c33e0 - correct Events : 0.4880374 Layout : left-symmetric Chunk Size : 64K Number Major Minor RaidDevice State this 0 25400 active sync /dev/mapper/sda1 0 0 25400 active sync /dev/mapper/sda1 1 1 25411 active sync /dev/mapper/sdb1 2 2 25422 active sync /dev/mapper/sdd1 3 3 003 faulty removed /dev/sdb1: Magic : a92b4efc Version : 00.90.03 UUID : bc74c21c:9655c1c6:ba6cc37a:df870496 Creation Time : Sun Nov 5 14:25:01 2006 Raid Level : raid5 Device Size : 488383936 (465.76 GiB 500.11 GB) Array Size : 1465151808 (1397.28 GiB 1500.32 GB) Raid Devices : 4 Total Devices : 3 Preferred Minor : 0 Update Time : Wed Nov 7 12:02:50 2007 State : clean Active Devices : 3 Working Devices : 3 Failed Devices : 1 Spare Devices : 0 Checksum : 401c33e3 - correct Events : 0.4880374 Layout : left-symmetric Chunk Size : 64K Number Major Minor RaidDevice State this 1 25411 active sync /dev/mapper/sdb1 0 0 25400 active sync /dev/mapper/sda1 1 1 25411 active sync /dev/mapper/sdb1 2 2 25422 active sync /dev/mapper/sdd1 3 3 003 faulty removed /dev/sdc1: Magic : a92b4efc Version : 00.90.03 UUID : bc74c21c:9655c1c6:ba6cc37a:df870496 Creation Time : Sun Nov 5 14:25:01 2006 Raid Level : raid5 Device Size : 488383936 (465.76 GiB 500.11 GB) Array Size : 1465151808 (1397.28 GiB 1500.32 GB) Raid Devices : 4 Total Devices : 4 Preferred Minor : 0 Update Time : Mon Nov 5 13:31:00 2007 State : active Active Devices : 4 Working Devices : 4 Failed Devices : 0 Spare Devices : 0 Checksum : 3fced5a3 - correct Events : 0.4857597 Layout : left-symmetric Chunk Size : 64K Number Major Minor RaidDevice State this 3 25433 active sync /dev/mapper/sdc1 0 0 25400 active sync /dev/mapper/sda1 1 1 25411 active sync /dev/mapper/sdb1 2 2 25422 active sync /dev/mapper/sdd1 3 3 25433 active sync /dev/mapper/sdc1 /dev/sdd1: Magic : a92b4efc Version : 00.90.03 UUID : bc74c21c:9655c1c6:ba6cc37a:df870496 Creation Time : Sun Nov 5 14:25:01 2006 Raid Level : raid5 Device Size : 488383936 (465.76 GiB 500.11 GB) Array Size : 1465151808 (1397.28 GiB 1500.32 GB) Raid Devices : 4 Total Devices : 3 Preferred Minor : 0 Update Time : Wed Nov 7 12:02:50 2007 State : clean Active Devices : 3 Working Devices : 3 Failed Devices : 1 Spare Devices : 0 Checksum : 401c33e6 - correct Events : 0.4880374 Layout : left-symmetric Chunk Size : 64K Number Major Minor RaidDevice State this 2 25422 active sync /dev/mapper/sdd1 0 0 25400 active sync /dev/mapper/sda1 1 1 25411 active sync /dev/mapper/sdb1 2 2
