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 at 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