From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: DeadManMoving Subject: Re: failed RAID 5 array Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 10:53:34 -0500 Message-ID: <1415980414.4241.49.camel@lappy.neofreak.org> References: <1415807882.4241.36.camel@lappy.neofreak.org> <54653735.90007@turmel.org> <1415971164.4241.38.camel@lappy.neofreak.org> <546606D4.5070406@turmel.org> <1415974131.4241.41.camel@lappy.neofreak.org> <5466173F.2060007@turmel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5466173F.2060007@turmel.org> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Phil Turmel Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, DeadManMoving List-Id: linux-raid.ids Hi Phil, On Fri, 2014-11-14 at 09:52 -0500, Phil Turmel wrote: > Hi Tony, > > {Convention on kernel.org is to trim posts & bottom or interleave posts} > Thanks a lot for the advice. > > Indeed. > > At this point, I would use --create --assume-clean, along with > "missing". You have a recent enough mdadm to specify > --data-offset=2048, which you definitely need. Something like: > > mdadm --create /dev/mdX --assume-clean --data-offset=2048 \ > --level=5 --raid-devices=4 --chunk=512 \ > missing /dev/sd{f,i,h} > > You should verify the Device Role numbers with mdadm -E again, as your > drive letters have changed from the initial report. To be absolutely > sure, I suggest you record drive serial numbers for each role #. Also > note the use of braces instead of square brackets--bash re-orders the > latter, and that would break your array. For this type of recovery, it > is vital that the devices be listed precisely in device role order, > starting with zero. > > After creation, verify that the space before and space after stats for > each device match the original report, before fsck or mount. > (--data-offset controls space before, that plus --size controls space > after.) That is my plan to closely look at devices role to ensure proper order in array creation. To avoid any mistake, i was planning to use /dev/sda /dev/sdb /dev/sdc syntax instead of /dev/sd{a,b,c}, it's probably the same, is it not? Like said in my original post, i am making duplicate copies of each disk, just to be extra safe. I already did it for two disks i have on hands. I have ordered and waiting for two other drives to come in. As soon as the copies will be done for the two other disks, i will try that procedure. I will use the --data-offset parameter as you suggest. Thank you so much for your help! Tony