similar to: help with mdadm/mount

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 30000 matches similar to: "help with mdadm/mount"

2018 Sep 11
1
[PATCH] daemon: consider /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf while inspecting mountpoints.
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
2019 Jul 23
2
mdadm issue
Just rebuilt a C6 box last week as C7. Four drives, and sda and sdb for root, with RAID-1 and luks encryption. Layout: lsblk NAME MAJ:MIN RM SIZE RO TYPE MOUNTPOINT sda 8:0 0 931.5G 0 disk ??sda1 8:1 0 200M 0 part /boot/efi ??sda2
2005 Apr 27
4
CentOS 4 Software Raid1 questions
I want to mirror an existing 40GB data only drive using software Raid1 on my new CentOS 4 server. The existing drive is connected to a Promise Ultra 100 TX2 controller (non-raid). I have read about mdadm and understand how to create the Raid1 on /dev/mdxx devices. However I would like to know if the existing data on the orignal 40GB drive in the system will be destroyed when I create the raid with
2007 Sep 25
2
mdadm problem.
So I'm trying to RAID-1 this system which has two identical disks installed in it, and it isn't working for some reason. I started by doing a CentOS-4 install on /dev/sda1 as root, and with /dev/sda2 as my swap. I finish the install, yum update, and then I want to make the mirrors. I copy the partition table from one disk to the other: # sfdisk -d /dev/sda | sfdisk /dev/sdb I create
2009 Dec 20
1
mdadm help
Hey List, So I had a 4 drive software RAID 5 set up consisting of /dev/sdb1, /dev/sdc1, /dev/sdd1 and /dev/sde1. I reinstalled my OS and after the reinstall I made the mistake of re-assembling the array incorrectly by typing "sudo mdadm --assemble /dev/md0 /dev/sdb /dev/sdc /dev/sdd /dev/sde" in a moment of stupidity. Obviously this didn't work and the array wouldn't mount and
2008 Jul 11
3
mdadm --readonly which device in halt?
Setting up nut on a system where an LVM volume holds the root filesystem.. What is the appropriate device form to use with "mdadm --readonly" in halt? This is on a CentOS 5 system. So far I have found three possibilities, but I do not know which one (if any) will still be valid that late in the halt procedure: 1. /dev/md0 (from posts on the net) 2.
2019 Jul 23
2
mdadm issue
Gordon Messmer wrote: > On 7/23/19 11:12 AM, mark wrote: > >> Now, cryptsetup gives me the same UUID as I have in /etc/mdadm.conf. >> The >> entry in /etc/crypttab looks identical to the RAIDs for root and swap, >> but nope. > > > Can you post those files somewhere?? I'm confused by the idea that > cryptsetup is involved in or using the same UUID as an
2007 Aug 29
2
Setting up RAID using mdadm on a proliant DL320 G4
Hi, I have a new server HP proliant DL320 G4, with two 160 GB SATA hdds.. I have installed CentOS 4.5 with mdadm without any problem, but when I disconnect one disk the server does not boot or I received a kernel panic when booting... I have disabled the SATA embeded raid (BIOS) and nothing.. I've also download the driver from HP site HP (Embedded SATA RAID Controller Driver Diskette for Red
2015 Feb 10
3
CentOS 7 : create RAID arrays manually using mdadm --create ?
Hi, When installing CentOS 7, is there a way to 1. leave the GUI installer and open up a console 2. create RAID arrays manually using mdadm --create 3. get back in the GUI installer and use the freshly created /dev/mdX arrays? I tried to do this, but the installer always exits informing me that he can't create the RAID arrays (since they're already created, duh). Any suggestions?
2010 Nov 14
3
RAID Resynch...??
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
2019 Apr 09
2
Kernel panic after removing SW RAID1 partitions, setting up ZFS.
System is CentOS 6 all up to date, previously had two drives in MD RAID configuration. md0: sda1/sdb1, 20 GB, OS / Partition md1: sda2/sdb2, 1 TB, data mounted as /home Installed kmod ZFS via yum, reboot, zpool works fine. Backed up the /home data 2x, then stopped the sd[ab]2 partition with: mdadm --stop /dev/md1; mdadm --zero-superblock /dev/sd[ab]1; Removed /home in /etc/fstab. Used
2011 Oct 31
2
libguestfs and md devices
We've recently discovered that libguestfs can't handle guests which use md. There are (at least) 2 reasons for this: Firstly, the appliance doesn't include mdadm. Without this, md devices aren't detected during the boot process. Simply adding mdadm to the appliance package list fixes this. Secondly, md devices referenced in fstab as, e.g. /dev/md0, aren't handled
2011 Nov 24
1
mdadm / Ubuntu 10.04 error
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
2017 Feb 18
3
usb drives & Orico ORICO 9548U3-BK
Everyone, Is there a way to manually assign usb drives to a specified device label. Is there a way to force two usb drives to be labeled as /dev/sdc and /dev/sdd? I decided to build an archive server for the purpose of backing up other fedora/centos desktops at the office. I built a machine and have installed Centos 7.3 on it with all updates current. I also purchased a 3.0 usb sata drive
2019 Jan 29
2
C7, mdadm issues
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
2011 Oct 08
1
CentOS 6.0 CR mdadm-3.2.2 breaks Intel BIOS RAID
I just upgraded my home KVM server to CentOS 6.0 CR to make use of the latest libvirt and now my RAID array with my VM storage is missing. It seems that the upgrade to mdadm-3.2.2 is the culprit. This is the output from mdadm when scanning that array, # mdadm --detail --scan ARRAY /dev/md0 metadata=imsm UUID=734f79cf:22200a5a:73be2b52:3388006b ARRAY /dev/md126 metadata=imsm
2019 Jan 29
2
C7, mdadm issues
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. >>>>
2011 Nov 23
2
[PATCH] New API: mdadm-stop for stopping MD devices.
This API is used to stop a md device. When we want to move a device to another md array, we should stop the md device which contained this device first. Signed-off-by: Wanlong Gao <gaowanlong at cn.fujitsu.com> --- daemon/md.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++ generator/generator_actions.ml | 9 +++++++++ regressions/test-mdadm.sh | 14 ++++++++++++++ src/MAX_PROC_NR
2012 Jun 07
1
mdadm: failed to write superblock to
Hello, i have a little problem. Our server has an broken RAID. # cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : [raid1] md0 : active raid1 sda1[2](F) sdb1[1] 2096064 blocks [2/1] [_U] md2 : active raid1 sda3[2](F) sdb3[1] 1462516672 blocks [2/1] [_U] md1 : active raid1 sda2[0] sdb2[1] 524224 blocks [2/2] [UU] unused devices: <none> I have remove the partition: # mdadm --remove
2019 Jan 30
1
C7, mdadm issues
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: