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 04:29:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <73066.92033.qm@web51304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <87hbvu9626.fsf@frosties.localdomain> 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: <87hbvu9626.fsf@frosties.localdomain> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jon@eHardcastle.com, Goswin von Brederlow Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids --- On Wed, 26/8/09, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > From: Goswin von Brederlow > Subject: Re: Raid 5 - not clean and then a failure. > To: Jon@eHardcastle.com > Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org > Date: Wednesday, 26 August, 2009, 12:18 PM > Jon Hardcastle > writes: >=20 > > Guys, > > > > 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. > > > > 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)? > > > > Please help! >=20 > The inconsistency is probably just a block here or there > and I'm > assuming none of your drives actualy failed. So 99.9999% of > your data > should be there. Just rebooting might actualy just get your > raid back > (to syncing). If not then you have to force reassembly from > the drives > with the newest serials. That will give you some data > corruption, > whatever was writing when the controler gave errors. Worst > case you > have to recreate the raid with --assume-clean. >=20 > I recommend adding a bitmap to the raid. That way a > wrongfully failed > drive can be resynced in a matter of minutes instead of > hours or > days. Makes it way less likely another error occurs during > resync. >=20 > MfG > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Goswin > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe > linux-raid" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at=A0 http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >=20 I did look into bitmaps *abit* i could easily have the imagine for my 6= drive raid 5 stored on the raid1 I have in the same system.. The googl= ing I did tho did not paint a pretty picture it talked about huge perfo= rmance hits? ----------------------- 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