similar to: C7 and mdadm - apparently SOLVED

mark wrote: > Looking around on the Web, what I just tried was to stop the RAID, then > do an --assemble --scan, and *that* found everything, put the raid > together, and appears to be rebuilding using the new drive. > > *phew* > > > I do find it interesting that scan works, but explicitly assembling > apparently remembers the drive that died, and wouldn't even look

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

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:

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:

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

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

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: >>>>>>>

Does anyone know if the actual physical position in the hot-swap bays affects how mdadm tries to assemble a drive? mark

Hi, I lost my mdadm.conf (and /proc/mdadm shows nothing useful) and I'd like to mount the filesystem again. So I've booted using rescue but I was wondering if I can do a command like this safely (i.e without losing the data previously stored). mdadm -C /dev/md0 --level=raid0 --raid-devices=2 /dev/sda1 /dev/sdb1 Where of course the raid devices and the /dev/x are the correct ones

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

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

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,

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

Gordon Messmer wrote: > On 01/24/2017 08:33 AM, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: >> I'm building a new box, and I want three partitions - /boot, /, and >> swap, on*one* RAID 1, not three separate partitions. Other than >> <alt-f2> mdadm...,*is* there any way in the graphical installer to do >> this? All I see is a way to make three separate partitions. > If

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:

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

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

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

> 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