Alessandro Baggi wrote:
Il 30/01/19 14:02, mark ha scritto:
On 01/30/19 03:45, Alessandro Baggi wrote:
Il 29/01/19 20:42, mark ha scritto:
Alessandro Baggi wrote:
Il 29/01/19 18:47, mark ha scritto:
Alessandro Baggi wrote: > Il 29/01/19 15:03, mark ha scritto: > >> I've no idea what happened, but the box I was working on >> last week has a *second* bad drive. Actually, I'm starting >> to wonder about that particulare hot-swap bay. >> >> Anyway, mdadm --detail shows /dev/sdb1 remove. I've added >> /dev/sdi1... >> but see both /dev/sdh1 and /dev/sdi1 as spare, and have yet >> to find a reliable way to make either one active. >> >> Actually, I would have expected the linux RAID to replace a >> failed one with a spare....
> can you report your raid configuration like raid level and > raid devices and the current status from /proc/mdstat? > Well, nope. I got to the point of rebooting the system (xfs had the RAID volume, and wouldn't let go; I also commented out the RAID volume.
It's RAID 5, /dev/sdb *also* appears to have died. If I do mdadm --assemble --force -v /dev/md0 /dev/sd[cefgdh]1 mdadm: looking for devices for /dev/md0 mdadm: /dev/sdc1 is identified as a member of /dev/md0, slot 0. mdadm: /dev/sdd1 is identified as a member of /dev/md0, slot -1. mdadm: /dev/sde1 is identified as a member of /dev/md0, slot 2. mdadm: /dev/sdf1 is identified as a member of /dev/md0, slot 3. mdadm: /dev/sdg1 is identified as a member of /dev/md0, slot 4. mdadm: /dev/sdh1 is identified as a member of /dev/md0, slot -1. mdadm: no uptodate device for slot 1 of /dev/md0 mdadm: added /dev/sde1 to /dev/md0 as 2 mdadm: added /dev/sdf1 to /dev/md0 as 3 mdadm: added /dev/sdg1 to /dev/md0 as 4 mdadm: no uptodate device for slot 5 of /dev/md0 mdadm: added /dev/sdd1 to /dev/md0 as -1 mdadm: added /dev/sdh1 to /dev/md0 as -1 mdadm: added /dev/sdc1 to /dev/md0 as 0 mdadm: /dev/md0 assembled from 4 drives and 2 spares - not enough to start the array.
--examine shows me /dev/sdd1 and /dev/sdh1, but that both are spares.
Hi Mark, please post the result from
cat /sys/block/md0/md/sync_action
There is none. There is no /dev/md0. mdadm refusees, saying that it's lost too many drives.
mark
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
I suppose that your config is 5 drive and 1 spare with 1 drive failed. It's strange that your spare was not used for resync. Then you added a new drive but it does not start because it marks the new disk as spare and you have a raid5 with 4 devices and 2 spares.
First I hope that you have a backup for all your data and don't run some exotic command before backupping your data. If you can't backup your data, it's a problem.
This is at work. We have automated nightly backups, and I do offline backups of the backups every two weeks.
Have you tried to remove the last added device sdi1 and restart the raid and force to start a resync?
The thing is, it had one? two? spares when /dev/sdb1 started dying, and it didn't use them.
Have you tried to remove this 2 devices and re-add only the device that will be usefull for resync? Maybe you can set 5 devices for your raid and not 6, if it works (after resync) you can add your spare device growing your raid set.
I tried, and that's when I lost it (again), and it refuses to assemble/start the RAID "not enough devices".
Reading on google many users use --zero-superblock before re-add the device.
I can take one out, and re-add, but I think I'm going to have to recreate the RAID again, and again restore from backup.
Other user reassemble the raid using --assume-clean but I don't know what effect it will produces
Hope that someone give you a better help for this.
Update here if you got the solution.
Not that I'm into American football, but I seem to have pulled off what I understand is called a hail-mary: *without* zeroing the superrblocks, I did a create with all six good drives, excluding /dev/sdb1, and explicitly told it one spare.
And the array is there, complete with data, with *one* spare, five good drives, and it's currently rebuilding the spare.
The last resort worked, though we'll see how long.
mark