search for: sdh1

...% /bricks/sde1 /dev/sdf1????????????????????????? 7.3T? 711G? 6.6T? 10% /bricks/sdf1 /dev/sdf1????????????????????????? 7.3T? 711G? 6.6T? 10% /bricks/sdf1 /dev/sdg1????????????????????????? 7.3T? 756G? 6.6T? 11% /bricks/sdg1 /dev/sdg1????????????????????????? 7.3T? 756G? 6.6T? 11% /bricks/sdg1 /dev/sdh1????????????????????????? 7.3T? 753G? 6.6T? 11% /bricks/sdh1 /dev/sdh1????????????????????????? 7.3T? 753G? 6.6T? 11% /bricks/sdh1 [root at st-srv-03 ~]# df -h|grep localhost localhost:/test???????????????????? 59T? 5.7T?? 53T? 10% /gfs/test localhost:/vm-images?????????????? 7.3T? 717G? 6.6T? 10%...

...39;m getting an error when trying to delete a device from a raid1 (data and metadata mirrored). > btrfs filesystem show failed to read /dev/sr0 Label: none uuid: 78b5162b-489e-4de1-a989-a47b91adef50 Total devices 2 FS bytes used 107.64GB devid 2 size 149.05GB used 109.01GB path /dev/sdh1 devid 1 size 156.81GB used 109.03GB path /dev/sdb6 Btrfs v0.20-rc1 > btrfs device delete /dev/sdh1 /mnt/raid-data/ ERROR: error removing the device ''/dev/sdh1'' - Inappropriate ioctl for device Raid has been working fine for a long time. Both devices are present but /d...

...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.... >> >> Clues for the poor? I *really* don't want to freak out the user by...

...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 lik...

...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.... >> >>>&gt...

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.... Clues for the poor? I *really* don't want to freak out the user by taking it down, and building yet another array....

...gt;>>>>>> 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 sp...

...onder 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 >>>>>>>>>&gt...

...upported by the ubuntu 8.04 LTS kernel and xen-3.2.1. Is this a ubuntu-specific problem, or is it solved in Suse, Red Hat, XenSource, whatever? When i try to block-attach it, xm displays no error, but the device is not created. # xm block-attach 0 tap:qcow:/var/xen/domains/dapper10/test.img /dev/sdh1 w 0 # mount /dev/sdh1 /mnt/test/ mount: special device /dev/sdh1 does not exist In the config file ''tap:qcow:/var/xen/domains/dapper10/test.img,sda2,w'', --> test.img is in use. And i thought there is no /dev/sdh1? xm block-detach ... Now the VM boots, but stucks after kernel...

...d, 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.... >>> >>> Clues for the poor? I *really* don't want...

...; 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 yo...

...nder 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 sp...

...#39;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.... >>...

...gt;>> 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 >>>>>>>>> fail...

...#39;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.... >>...

...e I started looking...) Brought it up, RAID not working. I finally found that I had to do an mdadm --stop /dev/md0, then I could do an assemble, then I could add the new drive. But: it's now cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] md0 : active (auto-read-only) raid5 sdg1[8](S) sdh1[7] sdf1[4] sde1[3] sdd1[2] sdc1[1] 23441313792 blocks super 1.2 level 5, 512k chunk, algorithm 2 [7/5] [_UUUU_U] bitmap: 0/30 pages [0KB], 65536KB chunk unused devices: <none> and I can't mount it (it's xfs, btw). *Should* I make it readwrite, or is there something else...

Hello I have a CentOS 6.6 Server with 13 disks in a RAID 6. Some weeks ago, i upgraded it to 17 disks, two of them configured as spare. The reshape worked like normal in the beginning. But at 69% it stopped. md2 : active raid6 sdj1[0] sdg1[18](S) sdh1[2] sdi1[5] sdm1[15] sds1[12] sdr1[14] sdk1[9] sdo1[6] sdn1[13] sdl1[8] sdd1[20] sdf1[19] sdq1[16] sdb1[10] sde1[17](S) sdc1[21] 19533803520 blocks super 1.2 level 6, 1024k chunk, algorithm 2 [15/15] [UUUUUUUUUUUUUUU] [=============>.......] reshape = 69.0% (1347861324/1953380352) fi...

...gt;>>>>>> 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 >...

Well, you have *way* more files than we do... :) Il 30/03/2023 11:26, Hu Bert ha scritto: > Just an observation: is there a performance difference between a sw > raid10 (10 disks -> one brick) or 5x raid1 (each raid1 a brick) Err... RAID10 is not 10 disks unless you stripe 5 mirrors of 2 disks. > with > the same disks (10TB hdd)? The heal processes on the 5xraid1-scenario >

...e0 0000 00001d0 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 * 00001f0 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 aa55 0000200 So far, so normal. This works fine under 2.6.32-220.23.1.el6.x86_64 Personalities : [raid1] [raid10] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] md127 : active raid5 sdj3[2] sdi2[1] sdk4[3] sdh1[0] 5860537344 blocks level 5, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [4/4] [UUUU] However, I just patched to CentOS 6.3 and on reboot this array failed to be built. The 2.6.32-279 kernel complained that /dev/sdj was too similar to /dev/sdj3. But I reboot to -220.23.1 then it works. And, indeed, if I ru...