From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Robin Hill Subject: Re: unable to recover RAID 5 due to bad block Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 16:50:21 +0000 Message-ID: <20111110165020.GB3639@cthulhu.home.robinhill.me.uk> References: <4EBBF60F.4030606@northfolk.ca> <20111110172003.Horde.byVZeZk8pphOu-mzTQXxKL8@cakebox.homeunix.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="xXmbgvnjoT4axfJE" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111110172003.Horde.byVZeZk8pphOu-mzTQXxKL8@cakebox.homeunix.net> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Chris Purves Cc: "linux-raid@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: linux-raid.ids --xXmbgvnjoT4axfJE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu Nov 10, 2011 at 05:20:03PM +0100, Alexander K=FChn wrote: > ddrescue to the rescue! > Get a another new disk, then ddrescue the one with the read error to =20 > the new disk. > Assemble the array using the new disk instead of the one with the read er= ror. > You will loose the blocks that can't be read of course. > And in the future do run raid check/scrubbing at regular intervals. ;) > Alex. >=20 You may be better cloning the original failed disk - that way it will have a chance of actually recovering the read error (rather than having to lose the blocks). It depends on why/how/when the original disk failed though. Cheers, Robin --=20 ___ =20 ( ' } | Robin Hill | / / ) | Little Jim says .... | // !! | "He fallen in de water !!" | --xXmbgvnjoT4axfJE Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk68AMwACgkQShxCyD40xBKBlACg3T4kH9iCBWWO/S086p7NLCQr 33AAoMPJw1rMW2VNbNhpW079939MmLF5 =RCiF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --xXmbgvnjoT4axfJE--