Il 30/01/19 18:49, mark ha scritto:
Alessandro Baggi wrote:
Il 30/01/19 16:33, mark ha scritto:
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.
So you have recreated the array without faulty device?
Yep. mdadm --create --verbose /dev/md0 --level=5 --raid-devices=6 /dev/sd[cdefgh]1
It's currently at 2.2% recovered for the extra drive.
mark
How many TB?