From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: eamonn@snifter.org Subject: Re: differnet UUIDs and no of spares :( Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 11:06:10 -0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <35147.127.0.0.1.1232535970.squirrel@localhost> References: <1231954002.17710.13.camel@brandy.snifter.org> <496E6C37.9030608@tmr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Return-path: In-Reply-To: <496E6C37.9030608@tmr.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Bill Davidsen Cc: Eamonn Hamilton , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Wed, January 14, 2009 10:50 pm, Bill Davidsen wrote: > Eamonn Hamilton wrote: > >> Hi Guys, >> >> >> I'm looking at a server with a bunch of disks that had a raid 5 with >> two spares, however, one of the spares failed, the system then started >> rebuilding on the other and it crashed during the rebuild. >> >> I'm now left in the following situation : >> >> >> >> for a in a b c d e f g h i; do mdadm --examine --scan /dev/sd${a}; done >> ARRAY /dev/md0 level=raid5 num-devices=7 >> UUID=e1e75e8b:f9f387cd:5feed4c5:31c51eb2 >> ARRAY /dev/md0 level=raid5 num-devices=7 >> UUID=e1e75e8b:f9f387cd:5feed4c5:31c51eb2 >> ARRAY /dev/md0 level=raid5 num-devices=7 >> UUID=e1e75e8b:f9f387cd:5feed4c5:31c51eb2 >> ARRAY /dev/md0 level=raid5 num-devices=7 >> UUID=e1e75e8b:f9f387cd:5feed4c5:31c51eb2 >> ARRAY /dev/md0 level=raid5 num-devices=7 >> UUID=e1e75e8b:f9f387cd:5feed4c5:31c51eb2 >> ARRAY /dev/md0 level=raid5 num-devices=7 >> UUID=e1e75e8b:f9f387cd:8d12a2d2:3188faf0 >> spares=1 ARRAY /dev/md0 level=raid5 num-devices=7 >> UUID=e1e75e8b:f9f387cd:8d12a2d2:3188faf0 >> ARRAY /dev/md0 level=raid5 num-devices=7 >> UUID=e1e75e8b:f9f387cd:8d12a2d2:3188faf0 >> spares=1 ARRAY /dev/md0 level=raid5 num-devices=7 >> UUID=e1e75e8b:f9f387cd:8d12a2d2:3188faf0 >> >> >> >> The system complains because of the different uuids, and refuses to >> recreate the array. >> >> Is it basically stuffed, or is there something I can do to recover the >> 2TB filesystem that's on there ? >> >> > > What can you tell us about how that happened? When (if ever) was it > running, how was it created, etc, etc. > > You could probably try some things like trying to start it read-only > using --force, but don't do that yet, if you get it wrong you WILL be > likely to lose data. > > -- > Bill Davidsen > "Woe unto the statesman who makes war without a reason that will still > be valid when the war is over..." Otto von Bismark > > > I don't suppose anybody else has any ideas? I've been holding off attempting anything in the hope of somebody handing me a silver bullet, but failing that ... ;) Given that I still have the logs showing the order in which the drives were assembled in these various phases, if I force a re-assembly in a particular order, is there anything in the meta-data which would cause the array to auto-magically continue where it left off? Or should I simply take the afore-mentioned silver bullet, bite it and recreate the whole lot as a RAID6, followed by the usual mad scrabbling though old hard drives and tapes to try and get most of the content back? Thanks in advance for any help, Eamonn