From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bill Davidsen Subject: Re: raid5: degraded after reboot Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:58:22 -0400 Message-ID: <470FC3CE.7030904@tmr.com> References: <20071012154755.GE21133@skl-net.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20071012154755.GE21133@skl-net.de> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Andre Noll Cc: Jon Nelson , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Andre Noll wrote: > On 10:38, Jon Nelson wrote: > >> <4>md: kicking non-fresh sda4 from array! >> >> what does that mean? >> > > sda4 was not included because the array has been assembled previously > using only sdb4 and sdc4. So the data on sda4 is out of date. > > >> I also have this: >> >> raid5: raid level 5 set md0 active with 2 out of 3 devices, algorithm 2 >> RAID5 conf printout: >> --- rd:3 wd:2 fd:1 >> disk 1, o:1, dev:sdb4 >> disk 2, o:1, dev:sdc4 >> > > This looks normal. The array is up with two working disks. > > >> Why was /dev/sda4 kicked? >> > > Because it was non-fresh ;) > > >> md0 : active raid5 sda4[3] sdb4[1] sdc4[2] >> 613409664 blocks level 5, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [3/2] [_UU] >> [==>..................] recovery = 13.1% (40423368/306704832) >> finish=68.8min speed=64463K/sec >> > > Seems like your init scripts re-added sda4. > > >> 65-70KB/s is about what these drives can do so the rebuild speed is just peachy. >> > > If the rebuild completes successfully, you're ok again. There's > nothing you have to do. > What you didn't say is that "doing nothing" is not only all that's required, but where possible it's the best thing *to* do, avoiding any testing of the "recover while active" logic, any extra seeking, etc. And I would be sure I understood why the system had to be force booted. If sysreq is working I would assume using 's' before 'b' is normal. 'Tis on my systems! -- bill davidsen CTO TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979