From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jon Hardcastle Subject: Re: Raid 5 - not clean and then a failure. Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 04:02:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <384750.40261.qm@web51312.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <20090825081617.GA8885@cthulhu.home.robinhill.me.uk> Reply-To: Jon@eHardcastle.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090825081617.GA8885@cthulhu.home.robinhill.me.uk> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, Robin Hill List-Id: linux-raid.ids --- On Tue, 25/8/09, Robin Hill wrote: > From: Robin Hill > Subject: Re: Raid 5 - not clean and then a failure. > To: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org > Date: Tuesday, 25 August, 2009, 9:16 AM > On Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:54:49AM > -0700, Jon Hardcastle wrote: >=20 > > Guys, > >=20 > > I have been having some problems with my arrays that I > think i have > > nailed down to a pci controller (well I say that - it > is always the > > drives connected to *a* controller but I have tried > 2!) anyway the > > latest saga is i was trying some new kernel options > last night - which > > didn't work. > >=20 > Did they have the same chipset?=A0 I had problems with > PCI controllers on > one of my systems, which turned out to be some sort of > conflict between > the onboard chipset and the chipset on the > controllers.=A0 I found a PCI > card with a different chipset and have had no issues > since. >=20 > > But when i booted up again this morning it said one of > the drives was > > in an inconsistent state (not sure of the *exact* > error message). I > > then kicked off an add of the drive and it started > syncing. It got > > about 5% in and then the second drive in on that > controller complained > > and the array failed. > >=20 > > Is there any hope for my data? If i get a good > controller in there > > will the resync continue? can I try and tell it to > assume the drives > > are good (which they ought to be)? > >=20 > There's definitely hope.=A0 You can assemble the array > (using the good > drives and the last drive to fail) using the --force > option, then re-add > (and sync) the other drive (I'd recommend doing a fsck on > the filesystem > as well).=A0 I've just had to do a similar thing myself > after two drives > failed (overheated after a fan failure). >=20 > Cheers, > =A0 =A0 Robin It worked! I had to force the array, to assemble.. but it did. Had some= more problems with the controller that I think was caused ultimately b= y the two via controller conflicting. I think removing them *both* and = booting up helped the computer to work out what was going on (don't kno= w how) I also took down the 'minimum guaranteed' speed of the rebuild t= o 50MB as the 2 drives on the PCI/150 card were struggling I think - no= t sure about this as the drive does a 'check' once a week and has only = ever failed last weekend. So basically i am not really 100% sure what c= aused this problem - but i do know i need to get a more stable way of c= ontroller these additional drives! On a side note, if a 'repair' does everything a 'check' does but also r= epairs it. Is there any merit in just doing repairs? =46inally, anyone here got a port multiplier working? ----------------------- N: Jon Hardcastle E: Jon@eHardcastle.com 'Do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring worries of its ow= n.' ----------------------- =20 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html