search for: md0

...gt; 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 /d...

...;> >> 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. >> mda...

...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 o...

...he 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...

...n LVM volume group for all my important data, among them the root of the operating system(s). It based on four partitions on four separate disks (the third partition of each disk, 3 active, one spare) When booting, I get an error message similar to: raid5 failed: No md superblock detected on /dev/md0. and the LVM volume group does not come up. I then booted using the CentOS 5.6 LiveCD and tried to run a few mdadm command (see just below). It seems that there are some data still lying around, but I'm not very experienced with RAID and I thought that I would ask for advice before trying com...

...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...

...tatus 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 ide...

I updated my backup server this weekend from CentOS 7 to CentOS 8. OS disk is SSD, /dev/md0 are two 4TB WD mechanical drives. No hardware was changed. 1. wiped all drives 2. installed new copy of 8 on system SSD 3. re-created the 4TB mirror /dev/md0 with the same WD mechanical drives 4. created the largest single partition possible on /dev/md0 and formatted it ext4 5. waited several hour...

...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...

...he >>>>>> 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. >>>...

...he 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:...

...>>>> 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. >>>>>>&...

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

...he 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:...

...relevant, if you know otherwise please point me in the right direction. I have a ~3T ext3 filesystem on linux software raid that had been behaving corectly for sometime. Not to long ago it gave the following error after trying to mount it: mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/md0, or too many mounted file systems after a long fsck which I had to do manually I noticed the following in /var/log/messages after trying to mount again: Jan 19 09:13:11 terrorbytes kernel: EXT3-fs error (device md0): ext3_check_descriptors: Block bitmap for group 3584 not in group (block 0...

...gt;>> 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 a...

...'s fine and dandy, except that kinit reports a mess of errors about the devices, as they are already loaded. It appears there errors are harmelss, but I am not as well versed in low-level raid stuff as I should be, which is why I am reporting this here. The following is reported by kinit when md0 is already active (this was typed by hand so minor textual errors may be present): md: will configure md0 (super-block) from /dev/sda1,/dev/sdb1, below md: kinit (pid 1 ) used obsolete MD ioctl, upgrade your software to use new ictls md: loading md0: /dev/sda1 md: couldn't update array info. -2...

...ge 257: >From root at desk4.localdomain Tue Oct 28 07:25:37 2014 Return-Path: <root at desk4.localdomain> X-Original-To: root Delivered-To: root at desk4.localdomain From: mdadm monitoring <root at desk4.localdomain> To: root at desk4.localdomain Subject: DegradedArray event on /dev/md0:desk4 Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 07:25:27 -0400 (EDT) Status: RO This is an automatically generated mail message from mdadm running on desk4 A DegradedArray event had been detected on md device /dev/md0. Faithfully yours, etc. P.S. The /proc/mdstat file currently contains the following: Personalit...

So still coming up to speed with mdadm and I notice this morning one of my servers acting sluggish...so when I looked at the mdadm raid device I see this: mdadm --detail /dev/md0 /dev/md0: Version : 0.90 Creation Time : Mon Sep 27 22:47:44 2010 Raid Level : raid10 Array Size : 976759808 (931.51 GiB 1000.20 GB) Used Dev Size : 976759808 (931.51 GiB 1000.20 GB) Raid Devices : 2 Total Devices : 2 Preferred Minor : 0 Persistence : Superblock is pe...

Hi, I made an ext3 filesystem with 8kB block size: # mkfs.ext3 -T largefile -v -b 8192 /dev/md0 Warning: blocksize 8192 not usable on most systems. mke2fs 1.38 (30-Jun-2005) Filesystem label= OS type: Linux Block size=8192 (log=3) Fragment size=8192 (log=3) 148480 inodes, 18940704 blocks 947035 blocks (5.00%) reserved for the super user First data block=0 290 block groups 65528 blocks per gro...