similar to: Prolonged transfers turn hard drive into read-only.

Hello all. I have a server with a linux software raid1 setup between two drives of the same model....one hard drive as primary ide master and second hard drive as secondary master. Now primary master hard drive is displaying a lot of SMART errors so I would like to remove it and replace with another drive....different brand but same size. Partitions are /dev/md0 till /dev/md5. I think I know what

On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 05:19:49PM +0100, Nicolas Kovacs (info at microlinux.fr) wrote: > Le 28/02/2019 ? 04:12, Jobst Schmalenbach a ?crit?: > > I want to lock in the SDA/SDB/SDC for my drives > > In short : use UUIDs or labels instead of hardcoding /dev/sdX. I **KNOW** how to use UUID's ... this is NOT the reason why I am doing this! I *NEED* the order of the disks to be

I have a server that has 16 drives in it. They are connected to a 3ware 9650SE-16ML SATA RAID card. I have the card set to export all the drives as JBOD because I prefer Linux to do the reporting of drive and RAID health . I'm using mdadm to create a RAID6 with a hot spare. Doing this I can take the disks and put them on a completely different SATA controller/computer and still have the RAID

> I got the email that a drive in my 4-drive RAID10 setup failed. What are > my > options? > > Drives are WD1000FYPS (Western Digital 1 TB 3.5" SATA). > > mdadm.conf: > > # mdadm.conf written out by anaconda > MAILADDR root > AUTO +imsm +1.x -all > ARRAY /dev/md/root level=raid10 num-devices=4 > UUID=942f512e:2db8dc6c:71667abc:daf408c3 > >

qemu in SLIRP mode offers DHCP services to the appliance. We don't use them, but use a fixed IP address intead. This changes the appliance to get its IP address using DHCP. Note: This is only used when the network is enabled. dhclient is somewhat slower, but the penalty (a few seconds) is only paid for network users. We could consider using the faster systemd dhcp client instead. ---

On 2/28/19 10:04 PM, Jobst Schmalenbach wrote: > On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 05:19:49PM +0100, Nicolas Kovacs (info at microlinux.fr) wrote: >> Le 28/02/2019 ? 04:12, Jobst Schmalenbach a ?crit?: >>> I want to lock in the SDA/SDB/SDC for my drives >> >> In short : use UUIDs or labels instead of hardcoding /dev/sdX. > > I **KNOW** how to use UUID's ... this is

I got the email that a drive in my 4-drive RAID10 setup failed. What are my options? Drives are WD1000FYPS (Western Digital 1 TB 3.5" SATA). mdadm.conf: # mdadm.conf written out by anaconda MAILADDR root AUTO +imsm +1.x -all ARRAY /dev/md/root level=raid10 num-devices=4 UUID=942f512e:2db8dc6c:71667abc:daf408c3 /proc/mdstat: Personalities : [raid10] md127 : active raid10 sdf1[2](F)

From: Nikolay Ivanets <stenavin@gmail.com> Inspection code checks /etc/mdadm.conf to map MD device paths listed in mdadm.conf to MD device paths in the guestfs appliance. However on some operating systems (e.g. Ubuntu) mdadm.conf has alternative location: /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf. This patch consider an alternative location of mdadm.conf as well. --- daemon/inspect_fs_unix_fstab.ml | 13

Hi Folks - Using CentOS on a server destined to have a dozen SATA drives in it. The server is fine, raid 5 is set up on groups of 4 SATA drives. Today we decide to disconnect one SATA drive to simulate a failure. The box trucked on fine... a little too fine. We waited some minutes but no problem was visible in /proc/mdstat or in /var/log/messages or on the console. I ran mdadm --monitor

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

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

I thought I'd test replacing a failed drive in a 4 drive raid 10 array on a CentOS 5.2 box before it goes online and before a drive really fails. I 'mdadm failed, removed', powered off, replaced drive, partitioned with sfdisk -d /dev/sda | sfdisk /dev/sdb, and finally 'mdadm add'ed'. Everything seems fine until I try to create a snapshot lv. (Creating a snapshot lv

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

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

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:

> 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

Package: xen-hypervisor-4.0-amd64 Version: 4.0.1-4 Severity: normal Tags: squeeze When the monitor is being restored from power saving mode via DPMS, X will lock up/restart. This only occurs when running Xen hypervisor. Running just 2.6.32-5 -xen-amd64 doesn't produce this effect. Note that both 2.6.32-5-xen-amd64 and 2.6.32-5-xen-amd64 with Xen 4.0.1 are running with nopat (to workaround

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. >>>>

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:

md_create: mdadm: boot: mdadm: boot is not a block device. at /home/rjones/d/libguestfs/images/guest-aux/make-fedora-img.pl line 95. Looking into this, it appears the old version of mdadm shipped in Ubuntu (mdadm 2.6.7) doesn't support the notion of giving arbitrary names to devices. Thus you have to do: mdadm --create /dev/md0 [devices] We do: mdadm --create boot [devices] which it