Should I Start Over?

Should I Start Over?

[Stephen Hargrove]

I'm having no luck with this problem.  If this is not the correct place to
seek assistance or if there is some other place I should ask, I would
appreciate it someone could point me in the right direction.

About a month ago, my system crashed.  When it booted, the raid array
would not start.  The system is seeing all of the drives, but can't find
/dev/md0.  I've got about 80Gb of data on the array which can be recovered
in time, but if I can rebuild the array without losing the data, that
would rock.

dmesg shows the following:

sh-2006: reiserfs read_super_block: bread failed (dev 09:00, block 8, size
1024)
sh-2006: reiserfs read_super_block: bread failed (dev 09:00, block 64,
size 1024)
sh-2021: reiserfs_read_super: can not find reiserfs on md(9,0)

The above is repeated 3 more times.  dmesg does see the four drives that
should compose /dev/md0 (hde is a spare):

# dmesg | grep hd
...
hdc: Maxtor 6Y120P0, ATA DISK drive
hdd: Maxtor 6Y120P0, ATA DISK drive
hde: Maxtor 6Y120P0, ATA DISK drive
hdg: Maxtor 6Y120P0, ATA DISK drive
...

# cat /proc/mdstat:

Personalities : [raid5]
read_ahead not set
unused devices: <none>

# cat /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf
DEVICE /dev/hd*
ARRAY /dev/md0 level=raid5 num-devices=3
UUID=fef44719:ddd66a49:0a337b48:b53e14c0
   devices=/dev/hdg1,/dev/hdd1,/dev/hdc1

# mdadmin --assemble --scan
mdadm: no devices found for /dev/md0

I don't know where to turn from here.  This is my first real experience
with Linux and raid devices.  If someone could help, I'd really appreciate
it.

Thanks.

--
Steve

Re: Should I Start Over?

[Luca Berra]

On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 08:46:02AM -0500, Stephen Hargrove wrote:
># cat /proc/mdstat:
>
>Personalities : [raid5]
>read_ahead not set
>unused devices: <none>
>
># cat /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf
>DEVICE /dev/hd*
>ARRAY /dev/md0 level=raid5 num-devices=3
>UUID=fef44719:ddd66a49:0a337b48:b53e14c0
>   devices=/dev/hdg1,/dev/hdd1,/dev/hdc1
>
># mdadmin --assemble --scan
>mdadm: no devices found for /dev/md0
>
can you try ?
cat /proc/partitions

and

mdadm --examine /dev/hdX1
replacing X with each of your drives

L.

-- 
Luca Berra -- bluca@comedia.it
        Communication Media & Services S.r.l.
 /"\
 \ /     ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN
  X        AGAINST HTML MAIL
 / \

Re: Should I Start Over?

[Stephen Hargrove]

Hi Luca.  Thanks for getting back with me.  Following is the information
you asked for.  Please let me know if I need to provide anything else.

Luca Berra said:
> can you try ?
> cat /proc/partitions

$ cat /proc/partitions
major minor  #blocks  name

  34     0  120060864 hdg
  34     1  120060832 hdg1
  33     0  120060864 hde
  33     1  120060832 hde1
  22     0  120060864 hdc
  22     1  120060832 hdc1
  22    64  120060864 hdd
  22    65  120060832 hdd1
   3     0   39062500 hda
   3     1      40131 hda1
   3     2     996030 hda2
   3     3    4883760 hda3
   3     4          1 hda4
   3     5    9767488 hda5
   3     6    1461883 hda6
   3     7   21912628 hda7

> and
>
> mdadm --examine /dev/hdX1
> replacing X with each of your drives


$ mdadm --examine /dev/hd[dceg]1
mdadm: No super block found on /dev/hdc1 (Expected magic a92b4efc, got
00000000)
mdadm: No super block found on /dev/hdd1 (Expected magic a92b4efc, got
00000000)
mdadm: No super block found on /dev/hde1 (Expected magic a92b4efc, got
00000000)
mdadm: No super block found on /dev/hdg1 (Expected magic a92b4efc, got
00000000)

--
Steve

Re: Should I Start Over?

[Luca Berra]

On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 01:42:19PM -0500, Stephen Hargrove wrote:
>$ mdadm --examine /dev/hd[dceg]1
>mdadm: No super block found on /dev/hdc1 (Expected magic a92b4efc, got
>00000000)
>mdadm: No super block found on /dev/hdd1 (Expected magic a92b4efc, got
>00000000)
>mdadm: No super block found on /dev/hde1 (Expected magic a92b4efc, got
>00000000)
>mdadm: No super block found on /dev/hdg1 (Expected magic a92b4efc, got
>00000000)
>
urgh,
no superblock
you can try to see if you can read your data by recreating the array in
degraded mode, so it does not rebuild.

like:
mdadm --create /dev/md0 --level=5 /dev/hdc1 /dev/hdd1 missing
try substituting the word missing for each of the drives
and see if you can mount the filesystem
if you do find your data use:
mdadm /dev/md0 -a <the device you replaced with missing>
to have it added to the array again

good luck!

L.


-- 
Luca Berra -- bluca@comedia.it
        Communication Media & Services S.r.l.
 /"\
 \ /     ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN
  X        AGAINST HTML MAIL
 / \

Re: Should I Start Over?

[Stephen Hargrove]

Luca Berra said:
>
> you can try to see if you can read your data by recreating the array in
> degraded mode, so it does not rebuild.
>
> like:
> mdadm --create /dev/md0 --level=5 /dev/hdc1 /dev/hdd1 missing
> try substituting the word missing for each of the drives
> and see if you can mount the filesystem
> if you do find your data use:
> mdadm /dev/md0 -a <the device you replaced with missing>
> to have it added to the array again
>


Ok, I did the following:

# mdadm --create /dev/md0 --level=5 --raid-devices=3 /dev/hdg1 /dev/hdd1
/dev/hdc1
mdadm: array /dev/md0 started.
# mdadm /dev/md0 -a /dev/hde1
mdadm: hot added /dev/hde1
# mount /data
mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/md0,
       or too many mounted file systems
# cat /proc/mdstat
Personalities : [raid5]
read_ahead 1024 sectors
md0 : active raid5 hde1[4] hdc1[3] hdd1[1] hdg1[0]
      240121472 blocks level 5, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [3/2] [UU_]
      [>....................]  recovery =  0.2% (282348/120060736)
finish=2250.3min speed=884K/sec
unused devices: <none>

If I read your email correctly, I wasn't expecting this.  But I'm also
inexperienced enough to not really know what to expect.  All I know is
that I now have movement where, before, I had none.

So is this good or bad?  Is my data gone forever (I gave up on it a while
back, so if it's gone, it's gone)?

Thanks again, Luca.  You rock!

--
Steve

RE: Should I Start Over?

[Guy]

You did not use the "missing" keyword.  You just created a 3 disk array.  If
your array had 3 disks, you should have listed 2 of them and the "missing"
keyword for the third.  Why did you add a spare(hde1)?

I am guessing your array had 4 disks.  You should have done something like
this:
mdadm --create /dev/md0 --level=5 --raid-devices=4 /dev/hdg1 /dev/hdd1
/dev/hdc1 missing
Note the "--raid-devices=4" and "missing".

I think your data is gone.  At least 1/3 or 1/4 of it.

Which ever disk it is rebuilding to, has been trashed!
Stop the array and re-create it, but this time list the disk as missing.  Do
this command to determine which disk is being re-built:
cat /proc/mdadm
You must do this before the re-build is finished!

Guy



-----Original Message-----
From: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org
[mailto:linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Hargrove
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 9:24 AM
To: Luca Berra
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Should I Start Over?

Luca Berra said:
>
> you can try to see if you can read your data by recreating the array in
> degraded mode, so it does not rebuild.
>
> like:
> mdadm --create /dev/md0 --level=5 /dev/hdc1 /dev/hdd1 missing
> try substituting the word missing for each of the drives
> and see if you can mount the filesystem
> if you do find your data use:
> mdadm /dev/md0 -a <the device you replaced with missing>
> to have it added to the array again
>


Ok, I did the following:

# mdadm --create /dev/md0 --level=5 --raid-devices=3 /dev/hdg1 /dev/hdd1
/dev/hdc1
mdadm: array /dev/md0 started.
# mdadm /dev/md0 -a /dev/hde1
mdadm: hot added /dev/hde1
# mount /data
mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/md0,
       or too many mounted file systems
# cat /proc/mdstat
Personalities : [raid5]
read_ahead 1024 sectors
md0 : active raid5 hde1[4] hdc1[3] hdd1[1] hdg1[0]
      240121472 blocks level 5, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [3/2] [UU_]
      [>....................]  recovery =  0.2% (282348/120060736)
finish=2250.3min speed=884K/sec
unused devices: <none>

If I read your email correctly, I wasn't expecting this.  But I'm also
inexperienced enough to not really know what to expect.  All I know is
that I now have movement where, before, I had none.

So is this good or bad?  Is my data gone forever (I gave up on it a while
back, so if it's gone, it's gone)?

Thanks again, Luca.  You rock!

--
Steve
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

RE: Should I Start Over?

[Guy]

Do you have the command you used to create the array the first time?

-----Original Message-----
From: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org
[mailto:linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Guy
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 9:40 AM
To: stephen@exitwound.org
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RE: Should I Start Over?

You did not use the "missing" keyword.  You just created a 3 disk array.  If
your array had 3 disks, you should have listed 2 of them and the "missing"
keyword for the third.  Why did you add a spare(hde1)?

I am guessing your array had 4 disks.  You should have done something like
this:
mdadm --create /dev/md0 --level=5 --raid-devices=4 /dev/hdg1 /dev/hdd1
/dev/hdc1 missing
Note the "--raid-devices=4" and "missing".

I think your data is gone.  At least 1/3 or 1/4 of it.

Which ever disk it is rebuilding to, has been trashed!
Stop the array and re-create it, but this time list the disk as missing.  Do
this command to determine which disk is being re-built:
cat /proc/mdadm
You must do this before the re-build is finished!

Guy



-----Original Message-----
From: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org
[mailto:linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Hargrove
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 9:24 AM
To: Luca Berra
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Should I Start Over?

Luca Berra said:
>
> you can try to see if you can read your data by recreating the array in
> degraded mode, so it does not rebuild.
>
> like:
> mdadm --create /dev/md0 --level=5 /dev/hdc1 /dev/hdd1 missing
> try substituting the word missing for each of the drives
> and see if you can mount the filesystem
> if you do find your data use:
> mdadm /dev/md0 -a <the device you replaced with missing>
> to have it added to the array again
>


Ok, I did the following:

# mdadm --create /dev/md0 --level=5 --raid-devices=3 /dev/hdg1 /dev/hdd1
/dev/hdc1
mdadm: array /dev/md0 started.
# mdadm /dev/md0 -a /dev/hde1
mdadm: hot added /dev/hde1
# mount /data
mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/md0,
       or too many mounted file systems
# cat /proc/mdstat
Personalities : [raid5]
read_ahead 1024 sectors
md0 : active raid5 hde1[4] hdc1[3] hdd1[1] hdg1[0]
      240121472 blocks level 5, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [3/2] [UU_]
      [>....................]  recovery =  0.2% (282348/120060736)
finish=2250.3min speed=884K/sec
unused devices: <none>

If I read your email correctly, I wasn't expecting this.  But I'm also
inexperienced enough to not really know what to expect.  All I know is
that I now have movement where, before, I had none.

So is this good or bad?  Is my data gone forever (I gave up on it a while
back, so if it's gone, it's gone)?

Thanks again, Luca.  You rock!

--
Steve
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: Should I Start Over?

[Luca Berra]

On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 08:23:38AM -0500, Stephen Hargrove wrote:
>Luca Berra said:
>>
>> you can try to see if you can read your data by recreating the array in
>> degraded mode, so it does not rebuild.
>>
>> like:
>> mdadm --create /dev/md0 --level=5 /dev/hdc1 /dev/hdd1 missing
>> try substituting the word missing for each of the drives
>> and see if you can mount the filesystem
>> if you do find your data use:
>> mdadm /dev/md0 -a <the device you replaced with missing>
>> to have it added to the array again
>>
>
>
>Ok, I did the following:
>
># mdadm --create /dev/md0 --level=5 --raid-devices=3 /dev/hdg1 /dev/hdd1
>/dev/hdc1
you were supposed to replace one of the disks with the word "missing", so
you could test it before resyncing and try different disc combination to
see if you could get your data back.

>So is this good or bad?  Is my data gone forever (I gave up on it a while
>back, so if it's gone, it's gone)?
>
yes, your data is gone.

L.

-- 
Luca Berra -- bluca@comedia.it
        Communication Media & Services S.r.l.
 /"\
 \ /     ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN
  X        AGAINST HTML MAIL
 / \

RE: Should I Start Over?

[Stephen Hargrove]

Guy said:
> You did not use the "missing" keyword.  You just created a 3 disk array.
> If
> your array had 3 disks, you should have listed 2 of them and the "missing"
> keyword for the third.

Hrm.  Ok.  I should have read the man page before proceeding.  Well, it's
official.  I am an idiot.

> Why did you add a spare(hde1)?

See above.

> You should have done something like this:
> mdadm --create /dev/md0 --level=5 --raid-devices=4 /dev/hdg1 /dev/hdd1
> /dev/hdc1 missing

# mdadm --create /dev/md0 --level=5 --raid-devices=4 /dev/hdg1 /dev/hdd1
/dev/hdc1 missing
mdadm: /dev/hdg1 appears to be part of a raid array:
    level=5 devices=3 ctime=Wed Jul  7 08:11:18 2004
mdadm: /dev/hdd1 appears to be part of a raid array:
    level=5 devices=3 ctime=Wed Jul  7 08:11:18 2004
mdadm: /dev/hdc1 appears to be part of a raid array:
    level=5 devices=3 ctime=Wed Jul  7 08:11:18 2004
Continue creating array? n

Yeah, it looks like I screwed the pooch on this one.  The array was
composed of hd[gdc] with hde as the spare.  I managed to stop the rebuild
at 1.1% complete.  I guess at this point I don't have anything to lose by
letting it rebuild.  Would there be any benefit to omitting hdg and
letting it rebuild from hd[cde]?  Like this:

# mdadm --create /dev/md0 --level=5 --raid-devices=4 /dev/hdd1 /dev/hdc1
/dev/hde1 missing

> Do this command to determine which disk is being re-built:
> cat /proc/mdadm

I do not have a /proc/mdadm.  All I have is /proc/mdstat.

Thanks!
--
Steve

Re: Should I Start Over?

[Stephen Hargrove]

Luca Berra said:
>
> you were supposed to replace one of the disks with the word "missing", so
> you could test it before resyncing and try different disc combination to
> see if you could get your data back.

Luca, I completely mis-read what you wrote and didn't check the
documentation for the "missing" keyword.  Sorry about that.  I do
appreciate all your assistance, though.  You've been most helpful.

--
Steve

RE: Should I Start Over?

[Guy]

I said:
> Do this command to determine which disk is being re-built:
> cat /proc/mdadm

You said:
I do not have a /proc/mdadm.  All I have is /proc/mdstat.
Thanks!

My bad! cat /proc/mdstat
Now I don't think /proc/mdstat will help.

Send me the output from these 2 commands:
Cat /proc/mdstat
mdadm -D /dev/md0

Omit the disk that is being re-built!!!!!!  Not hde1.  hde1 was added as a
spare.  It may still have good data.  The disk being re-built is toast!  The
other 2 may also have good data.

Take your time!!!  Re-read everything.  Then when you get to "re-read
everything", do it again!  :)

If you are not sure, just ask another question.

Lots of odd things can go wrong.  You can recover from most of them!!  But,
the documentation on recovery is non-existent!  I have learned what I know
from monitoring this list, asking on this list, and playing with the stuff.

Once we get things working we will try to determine why your re-build is so
slow!

Guy

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Hargrove [mailto:stephen@exitwound.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 2:24 PM
To: Guy
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RE: Should I Start Over?

Guy said:
> You did not use the "missing" keyword.  You just created a 3 disk array.
> If
> your array had 3 disks, you should have listed 2 of them and the "missing"
> keyword for the third.

Hrm.  Ok.  I should have read the man page before proceeding.  Well, it's
official.  I am an idiot.

> Why did you add a spare(hde1)?

See above.

> You should have done something like this:
> mdadm --create /dev/md0 --level=5 --raid-devices=4 /dev/hdg1 /dev/hdd1
> /dev/hdc1 missing

# mdadm --create /dev/md0 --level=5 --raid-devices=4 /dev/hdg1 /dev/hdd1
/dev/hdc1 missing
mdadm: /dev/hdg1 appears to be part of a raid array:
    level=5 devices=3 ctime=Wed Jul  7 08:11:18 2004
mdadm: /dev/hdd1 appears to be part of a raid array:
    level=5 devices=3 ctime=Wed Jul  7 08:11:18 2004
mdadm: /dev/hdc1 appears to be part of a raid array:
    level=5 devices=3 ctime=Wed Jul  7 08:11:18 2004
Continue creating array? n

Yeah, it looks like I screwed the pooch on this one.  The array was
composed of hd[gdc] with hde as the spare.  I managed to stop the rebuild
at 1.1% complete.  I guess at this point I don't have anything to lose by
letting it rebuild.  Would there be any benefit to omitting hdg and
letting it rebuild from hd[cde]?  Like this:

# mdadm --create /dev/md0 --level=5 --raid-devices=4 /dev/hdd1 /dev/hdc1
/dev/hde1 missing

> Do this command to determine which disk is being re-built:
> cat /proc/mdadm

I do not have a /proc/mdadm.  All I have is /proc/mdstat.

Thanks!
--
Steve

RE: Should I Start Over?

[Stephen Hargrove]

Guy said:
>
> Send me the output from these 2 commands:
> Cat /proc/mdstat

# cat /proc/mdstat
Personalities : [raid5]
read_ahead not set
unused devices: <none>

> mdadm -D /dev/md0

n# mdadm -D /dev/md0
mdadm: md device /dev/md0 does not appear to be active.

As I mentioned, I shut it off when it had reached 1.1% of the rebuild.  I
haven't turned it back on because I don't want it to begin rebuilding
again.  My minimal experience has shown that it will likely pick up where
it left off.  The startup script (Debian Sarge -- /etc/init.d/mdadm-raid)
is going to use /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf, which is:

# cat /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf
DEVICE /dev/hd*
ARRAY /dev/md0 level=raid5 num-devices=3
UUID=fef44719:ddd66a49:0a337b48:b53e14c0
   devices=/dev/hdg1,/dev/hdd1,/dev/hdc1

(And apparently doesn't reflect the fact that hde is my spare ...)

> Omit the disk that is being re-built!!!!!!  Not hde1.  hde1 was added as a
> spare.  It may still have good data.  The disk being re-built is toast!
> The other 2 may also have good data.

I'm guessing it was rebuilding hdg since that was the first device I
listed on the commandline.

> If you are not sure, just ask another question.

Thanks, Guy!  I sure do appreciate your assistance.

--
Steve

RE: Should I Start Over?

[Guy]

Humm.  I would guess it would re-build to the last disk on the command line.
Maybe just enter the command again.  Can't do any more damage!  Then do the
2 commands and send the output.

Did the original array have 3 disks and 1 spare?  If so, ignore the spare
until things are working again.

-----Original Message-----
From: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org
[mailto:linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Hargrove
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 3:41 PM
To: Guy
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RE: Should I Start Over?

Guy said:
>
> Send me the output from these 2 commands:
> Cat /proc/mdstat

# cat /proc/mdstat
Personalities : [raid5]
read_ahead not set
unused devices: <none>

> mdadm -D /dev/md0

n# mdadm -D /dev/md0
mdadm: md device /dev/md0 does not appear to be active.

As I mentioned, I shut it off when it had reached 1.1% of the rebuild.  I
haven't turned it back on because I don't want it to begin rebuilding
again.  My minimal experience has shown that it will likely pick up where
it left off.  The startup script (Debian Sarge -- /etc/init.d/mdadm-raid)
is going to use /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf, which is:

# cat /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf
DEVICE /dev/hd*
ARRAY /dev/md0 level=raid5 num-devices=3
UUID=fef44719:ddd66a49:0a337b48:b53e14c0
   devices=/dev/hdg1,/dev/hdd1,/dev/hdc1

(And apparently doesn't reflect the fact that hde is my spare ...)

> Omit the disk that is being re-built!!!!!!  Not hde1.  hde1 was added as a
> spare.  It may still have good data.  The disk being re-built is toast!
> The other 2 may also have good data.

I'm guessing it was rebuilding hdg since that was the first device I
listed on the commandline.

> If you are not sure, just ask another question.

Thanks, Guy!  I sure do appreciate your assistance.

--
Steve
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

RE: Should I Start Over?

[Stephen Hargrove]

Guy said:
> Humm.  I would guess it would re-build to the last disk on the command
> line.
> Maybe just enter the command again.  Can't do any more damage!  Then do
> the
> 2 commands and send the output.

Ok, I want to be perfectly clear on this.  I'm going to enter the
following command, right?

# mdadm --create /dev/md0 --level=5 --raid-devices=3 /dev/hdg1 /dev/hdd1
missing

> Did the original array have 3 disks and 1 spare?  If so, ignore the spare
> until things are working again.

Yes.  /dev/hde1 was the spare.  The array was comprised of /dev/hdg1,
/dev/hdd1, and /dev/hdc1.

--
Steve

RE: Should I Start Over?

[Guy]

That would be fine.  But we don't yet know which disk was trashed by the
re-build.  But as long as you have 1 missing disk it will not rebuild over
any more data.
If your command does not work try again with a different missing disk.

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Hargrove [mailto:stephen@exitwound.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 4:37 PM
To: Guy
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RE: Should I Start Over?

Guy said:
> Humm.  I would guess it would re-build to the last disk on the command
> line.
> Maybe just enter the command again.  Can't do any more damage!  Then do
> the
> 2 commands and send the output.

Ok, I want to be perfectly clear on this.  I'm going to enter the
following command, right?

# mdadm --create /dev/md0 --level=5 --raid-devices=3 /dev/hdg1 /dev/hdd1
missing

> Did the original array have 3 disks and 1 spare?  If so, ignore the spare
> until things are working again.

Yes.  /dev/hde1 was the spare.  The array was comprised of /dev/hdg1,
/dev/hdd1, and /dev/hdc1.

--
Steve

RE: Should I Start Over?

[Stephen Hargrove]

Ok, here we go.  See below for the information you requested earlier.

# mdadm --create /dev/md0 --level=5 --raid-devices=3 /dev/hdg1 /dev/hdd1
missing
mdadm: /dev/hdg1 appears to be part of a raid array:
    level=5 devices=3 ctime=Wed Jul  7 08:11:18 2004
mdadm: /dev/hdd1 appears to be part of a raid array:
    level=5 devices=3 ctime=Wed Jul  7 08:11:18 2004
Continue creating array? y
mdadm: array /dev/md0 started.

Guy said:
>
> Send me the output from these 2 commands:
> Cat /proc/mdstat

# cat /proc/mdstat
Personalities : [raid5]
read_ahead 1024 sectors
md0 : active raid5 hdd1[1] hdg1[0]
      240121472 blocks level 5, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [3/2] [UU_]

unused devices: <none>

>
> mdadm -D /dev/md0

# mdadm -D /dev/md0
/dev/md0:
        Version : 00.90.00
  Creation Time : Wed Jul  7 16:32:44 2004
     Raid Level : raid5
     Array Size : 240121472 (229.00 GiB 245.88 GB)
    Device Size : 120060736 (114.50 GiB 122.94 GB)
   Raid Devices : 3
  Total Devices : 3
Preferred Minor : 0
    Persistence : Superblock is persistent

    Update Time : Wed Jul  7 16:32:44 2004
          State : dirty, no-errors
 Active Devices : 2
Working Devices : 2
 Failed Devices : 1
  Spare Devices : 0

         Layout : left-symmetric
     Chunk Size : 64K

    Number   Major   Minor   RaidDevice State
       0      34        1        0      active sync   /dev/hdg1
       1      22       65        1      active sync   /dev/hdd1
       2       0        0        2      faulty
           UUID : 4120b6d1:f484d7f2:2372ca69:3c1063cd
         Events : 0.1

--
Steve