similar to: An mdadm question

Il 30/01/19 16:49, Simon Matter 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: >>>>>>>

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

I'm using Centos 4.5 right now, and I had a RAID 5 array stop because two drives became unavailable. After adjusting the cables on several occasions and shutting down and restarting, I was able to see the drives again. This is when I snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Please, someone with vast knowledge of how RAID 5 with mdadm works, tell me if I have any chance at all

Hello, I have a RAID5 array on my CentOS 5.6 x86_64 workstation which "suddenly" failed to work (actually after the system could not resume from a suspend). I had recently issues after moving the workstation to another office, where one of the disks got accidently unplugged. But the RAID was working and it had reconstructed (as far as I can tell) the data. After I replugged the disk,

This adds the mdadm-create API for creating RAID devices, and includes various fixes for the other two patches. Rich.

Hi. CENTOS 7.6.1810, fresh install - use this as a base to create/upgrade new/old machines. I was trying to setup two disks as a RAID1 array, using these lines mdadm --create --verbose /dev/md0 --level=0 --raid-devices=2 /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdc1 mdadm --create --verbose /dev/md1 --level=0 --raid-devices=2 /dev/sdb2 /dev/sdc2 mdadm --create --verbose /dev/md2 --level=0 --raid-devices=2

I have a large disk full of data that I'd like to upgrade to SW RAID 1 with a minimum of downtime. Taking it offline for a day or more to rsync all the files over is a non-starter. Since I've mounted SW RAID1 drives directly with "mount -t ext3 /dev/sdX" it would seem possible to flip the process around, perhaps change the partition type with fdisk or parted, and remount as

We're just using Linux software RAID for the first time - RAID1, and the other day, a drive failed. We have a clone machine to play with, so it's not that critical, but.... I partitioned a replacement drive. On the clone, I marked the RAID partitions on /dev/sda failed, and remove, and pulled the drive. After several iterations, I waited a minute or two, until all messages had stopped,

A user's system had a hard drive failure over the weekend. Linux RAID 6. I identified the drive, brought the system down (8 drives, and I didn't know the s/n of the bad one. why it was there in the box, rather than where 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

We have a machine that's a distro mirror - a *lot* of data, not just CentOS. We had the data on /dev/sdc. I added another drive, /dev/sdd, and created that as /dev/md4, with --missing, made an ext4 filesystem on it, and rsync'd everything from /dev/sdc. Note that we did this on *raw*, unpartitioned drives (not my idea). I then umounted /dev/sdc, and mounted /dev/md4, and it looked fine; I

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

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 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:

Hi, I'm in the process of trying mdadm for the first time I've been trying stuff out of tutorials, etc. At this point I know how to create stripes, and mirrors. My stripe is automatically restarting on reboot, but the degraded mirror isn't. -- Drew Einhorn -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

What's the right way to set up >2TB partitions for raid1 autoassembly? I don't need to boot from this but I'd like it to come up and mount automatically at boot. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com

On 2017-02-15, John R Pierce <pierce at hogranch.com> wrote: > On 2/14/2017 4:48 PM, tdukes at palmettoshopper.com wrote: > >> 3 - Can additional drive(s) be added later with a changein RAID level >> without current data loss? > > Only some systems support that sort of restriping, and its a dangerous > activity (if the power fails or system crashes midway through

Sorry, this is going to be a rather long post...Here's the situation; I have 4 IDE disks from an old snap server which fails to mount the raid array. We believe there is a controller error on the SNAP so we've put them in another box running CentOS 5 and can see the disks OK. hda thru hdd looks like this Disk /dev/hdd: 185.2 GB, 185283624960 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 22526

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:

Hi all, Somehow I managed to mess with a RAID array containing an ext3 partition. Parenthesis, if it matters: I disconnected physically a drive while the array was online. Next thing, I lost the right order of the drives in the array. While trying to re-create it, I overwrote the raid superblocks. Luckily, the array was RAID5 degraded, so whenever I re-created it, it didn't go into sync;