* trying to "brute-force" my RAID 5...
@ 2006-07-16 22:02 Sevrin Robstad
2006-07-17 11:13 ` Molle Bestefich
2006-07-18 1:39 ` Neil Brown
0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Sevrin Robstad @ 2006-07-16 22:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-raid
I have written some posts about this before... My 6 disk RAID 5 broke
down because of hardware failure. When I tried to get it up'n'running again
I did a --create without any missing disk, which made it rebuild. I have
also lost all information about how the old RAID was set up..
I got a friend of mine to make a list of all the 6^6 combinations of dev
1 2 3 4 5 missing, and set it up this way :
"mdadm --create -n 6 -l 5 dev1 2 3 4 5 missing ; fdisk -l /dev/md0 ;
mdadm --stop /dev/md0" .
But a "cat logfile | grep Linux" of the output of this script tells me
that on no of these combination does it find a valid "type 83" partition.
shouldn't this work ???
Sevrin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: trying to "brute-force" my RAID 5...
2006-07-16 22:02 trying to "brute-force" my RAID 5 Sevrin Robstad
@ 2006-07-17 11:13 ` Molle Bestefich
[not found] ` <44BBFF5A.7010702@start.no>
2006-07-18 1:39 ` Neil Brown
1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Molle Bestefich @ 2006-07-17 11:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sevrin Robstad; +Cc: linux-raid
Sevrin Robstad wrote:
> I got a friend of mine to make a list of all the 6^6 combinations of dev
> 1 2 3 4 5 missing,
>
> shouldn't this work ???
Only if you get the layout and chunk size right.
And make sure that you know whether you were using partitions (eg.
sda1) or whole drives (eg. sda - bad idea).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* Re: trying to "brute-force" my RAID 5...
2006-07-16 22:02 trying to "brute-force" my RAID 5 Sevrin Robstad
2006-07-17 11:13 ` Molle Bestefich
@ 2006-07-18 1:39 ` Neil Brown
2006-07-18 8:17 ` Francois Barre
1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Neil Brown @ 2006-07-18 1:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sevrin Robstad; +Cc: linux-raid
On Monday July 17, quackyo@start.no wrote:
> I have written some posts about this before... My 6 disk RAID 5 broke
> down because of hardware failure. When I tried to get it up'n'running again
> I did a --create without any missing disk, which made it rebuild. I have
> also lost all information about how the old RAID was set up..
>
> I got a friend of mine to make a list of all the 6^6 combinations of dev
> 1 2 3 4 5 missing, and set it up this way :
>
> "mdadm --create -n 6 -l 5 dev1 2 3 4 5 missing ; fdisk -l /dev/md0 ;
> mdadm --stop /dev/md0" .
> But a "cat logfile | grep Linux" of the output of this script tells me
> that on no of these combination does it find a valid "type 83" partition.
>
> shouldn't this work ???
No.
What are you expecting fdisk to tell you? fdisk lists partitions and
I suspect you didn't have any partitions on /dev/md0
More likely you want something like
fsck -n -f /dev/md0
and see which one produces the least noise.
NeilBrown
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: trying to "brute-force" my RAID 5...
2006-07-18 1:39 ` Neil Brown
@ 2006-07-18 8:17 ` Francois Barre
2006-07-18 8:30 ` Brad Campbell
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Francois Barre @ 2006-07-18 8:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-raid; +Cc: Sevrin Robstad
> What are you expecting fdisk to tell you? fdisk lists partitions and
> I suspect you didn't have any partitions on /dev/md0
> More likely you want something like
> fsck -n -f /dev/md0
>
> and see which one produces the least noise.
Maybe a simple file -s /dev/md0 could do the trick, and would only
produce output different from the mere "data" when the good
configuration is found...
--
F.-E.B.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: trying to "brute-force" my RAID 5...
2006-07-18 8:17 ` Francois Barre
@ 2006-07-18 8:30 ` Brad Campbell
2006-07-18 8:56 ` Francois Barre
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Brad Campbell @ 2006-07-18 8:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Francois Barre; +Cc: linux-raid, Sevrin Robstad
Francois Barre wrote:
>> What are you expecting fdisk to tell you? fdisk lists partitions and
>> I suspect you didn't have any partitions on /dev/md0
>> More likely you want something like
>> fsck -n -f /dev/md0
>>
>> and see which one produces the least noise.
>
> Maybe a simple file -s /dev/md0 could do the trick, and would only
> produce output different from the mere "data" when the good
> configuration is found...
>
More likely to produce an output whenever the 1st disk in the array is in the right place as it will
just look at the 1st couple of sectors for the superblock.
I'd go with the fsck idea as it will try to inspect the rest of the filesystem also.
Brad
--
"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability
to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable
for their apparent disinclination to do so." -- Douglas Adams
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: trying to "brute-force" my RAID 5...
2006-07-18 8:30 ` Brad Campbell
@ 2006-07-18 8:56 ` Francois Barre
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Francois Barre @ 2006-07-18 8:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-raid; +Cc: Brad Campbell
> More likely to produce an output whenever the 1st disk in the array is in the right place as it will
> just look at the 1st couple of sectors for the superblock.
>
> I'd go with the fsck idea as it will try to inspect the rest of the filesystem also.
>
Obviously that's true, but it's still a good way to be sure of the
first disk, and the time cost of the file -s is
neglectible...Personally, I would have done both.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: trying to "brute-force" my RAID 5...
@ 2006-07-18 21:14 Sevrin Robstad
2006-07-23 12:28 ` Tuomas Leikola
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Sevrin Robstad @ 2006-07-18 21:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-raid
Neil Brown wrote:
>
>>I have written some posts about this before... My 6 disk RAID 5 broke
>>down because of hardware failure. When I tried to get it up'n'running
again
>>I did a --create without any missing disk, which made it rebuild. I have
>>also lost all information about how the old RAID was set up..
>>
>>I got a friend of mine to make a list of all the 6^6 combinations of dev
>>1 2 3 4 5 missing, and set it up this way :
>>
>>"mdadm --create -n 6 -l 5 dev1 2 3 4 5 missing ; fdisk -l /dev/md0 ;
>>mdadm --stop /dev/md0" .
>>But a "cat logfile | grep Linux" of the output of this script tells me
>>that on no of these combination does it find a valid "type 83" partition.
>>
>>shouldn't this work ???
>
> No.
>
> What are you expecting fdisk to tell you? fdisk lists partitions and
> I suspect you didn't have any partitions on /dev/md0
> More likely you want something like
> fsck -n -f /dev/md0
>
> and see which one produces the least noise.
They all produce
"Bad magic number in super-block while trying to open /dev/md0" .
I tried file -s /dev/md0 also, and with one of the disk as first disk I
got "ext 3 filedata (needs journal recovery) (errors)" .
but as fsck -n -f can't do anything with it, there might not be any hope ?
Or can it still be that I have some wrong setting?
Chunk size is (and was) default 64k, yes?
Sevrin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-07-23 12:28 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2006-07-16 22:02 trying to "brute-force" my RAID 5 Sevrin Robstad
2006-07-17 11:13 ` Molle Bestefich
[not found] ` <44BBFF5A.7010702@start.no>
2006-07-17 21:23 ` Sevrin Robstad
2006-07-18 14:04 ` Molle Bestefich
2006-07-18 1:39 ` Neil Brown
2006-07-18 8:17 ` Francois Barre
2006-07-18 8:30 ` Brad Campbell
2006-07-18 8:56 ` Francois Barre
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-07-18 21:14 Sevrin Robstad
2006-07-23 12:28 ` Tuomas Leikola
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).