Hello Everyone,<br><br>Thanks to everyone who helped me to learn about RAIDs, starting at the end and working backwards :)<br><br>I brought my system back up, minus the raid0 partition that was corrupted. My question now is what's the best way to back up my server? Basically, I have one more (software?) raid1 array, a cluster setup on 5 subnodes (but I don't see any of their data here, so prob just all scratch and OS space), and then a hardware RAID controller (10.54.1.100) attached to 2 raid setups (scratch, apps, and data as one setup and then last week we added the shacks as a seperate 12TB array. It came as a RAID, but I think we had to decouple it b/c our OS couldn't read it), and then we have the computer with mounts referencing our main Windows server (10.1.1.17), which is backed up by our Windows guy.<br>
Should I use the empty shacks as backup space?<br><br>I hope that all makes sense. If not, please let me know. I really want to back up and ensure thsi never happens again. Thank you!<br><br>This is the output from `df -h`:<br>
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on<br>/dev/sda1 9.8G 7.5G 2.3G 77% /<br>none 4.0G 0 4.0G 0% /dev/shm<br>
/dev/md0 459G 140G 296G 33% /export<br>/dev/sda2 2.0G 1.4G 561M 72% /var<br>tmpfs 241M 3.8M 238M 2% /var/lib/ganglia/rrds<br>
10.54.1.100:/mnt/RAID/FSDATA 1.1T 812G 223G 79% /data<br>10.54.1.100:/mnt/RAID/apps 1.1T 812G 223G 79% /apps<br>10.54.1.100:/scratch 72G 13G 55G 19% /scratch<br>10.54.1.100:/mnt/shack1 2.0T 103M 1.9T 1% /mnt/shack1<br>
10.54.1.100:/mnt/shack2 1.8T 238G 1.5T 14% /mnt/fs3<br>10.54.1.100:/mnt/shack3 1.8T 285G 1.5T 17% /mnt/fs4<br>10.54.1.100:/mnt/shack4 1.8T 100M 1.7T 1% /mnt/shack4<br>
10.54.1.100:/mnt/shack5 1.8T 100M 1.7T 1% /mnt/shack5<br>10.54.1.100:/mnt/shack6 1.7T 101M 1.6T 1% /mnt/shack6<br>//<a href="http://10.1.1.17/Scanner_data2">10.1.1.17/Scanner_data2</a> 11T 4.7T 5.4T 47% /mnt/scanner_data2<br>
//<a href="http://10.1.1.17/SCANNER_DATA">10.1.1.17/SCANNER_DATA</a> 11T 4.7T 5.4T 47% /mnt/scanner_data<br>//<a href="http://10.1.1.17/shared">10.1.1.17/shared</a> 11T 4.7T 5.4T 47% /mnt/shared<br>
//<a href="http://10.1.1.17/fMRI">10.1.1.17/fMRI</a> 11T 4.7T 5.4T 47% /mnt/fMRI<br>//<a href="http://10.1.1.17/USERS">10.1.1.17/USERS</a> 11T 4.7T 5.4T 47% /mnt/users<br>
/export/home/fs431 459G 140G 296G 33% /home/fs431<br>/export/home/coreg 459G 140G 296G 33% /home/coreg<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 7:26 PM, John R Pierce <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pierce@hogranch.com">pierce@hogranch.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="im">Jeff Sadino wrote:<br>
> Thank you John. The thing is my data was not overwritten, corrupted,<br>
> etc. Some was, but I know which parts. Basically, I just cleared the<br>
> file system designation. So if a file is 64K, does the first 32K on<br>
> drive 1 contain the first half of the file and the first 32K on drive<br>
> 2 contain the second half, or are the 32 size chunks on random locations?<br>
<br>
</div>didn't you say you did a mkfs ext3 over this stripe's partition? that<br>
would have overwirtten all the root directory areas, made a total mess<br>
of things.<br>
<br>
ifyou -just- used a fdisk program to change the partition type, quick,<br>
change it back to what it was, and put it all back.<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CentOS mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CentOS@centos.org">CentOS@centos.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos" target="_blank">http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>