Re: invalid superblock - *again*

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tuesday August 22, Dexter.Filmore@xxxxxx wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 22. August 2006 03:18 schrieb Neil Brown:
> > >
> > > Most notable: [   38.536733] md: kicking non-fresh sdd1 from array!
> > > What does this mean?
> >
> > It means that the 'event' count on sdd1 is old compared to that on
> > the other partitions.  The most likely explanation is that when the
> > array was last running, sdd1 was not part of it.
> 
> Event count - so: a certain command or set of instructions was sent to all 
> disks, but one didn't get it, hence the raid module can't ensure that the 
> data on that disk is consistent with the rest of the array?
> 

Not exactly.  Events are thing like starting and stopping the array,
adding or removing drives, drive failure and clean <-> dirty
transitions.  If the event counts are not consistent, then when the
array was last stopped, one drive (at least) was missing from the
array. 

> > > What's happening here? What can I do? Do I have to readd sdd and resync?
> > > Or is there an easier way out? What causes these issues?
> >
> > Yes, you need to add sdd1 back to the array and it will resync.
> 
> Ok, if that's what it takes.
> 
> > I would need some precise recent history of the array to know why this
> > happened.  That might not be easy to come by.
> 
> Depends on what exactly you mean. Disk age? smart data? Hardware types? Logs? 
> OS?
> 

Complete kernel logs since a time when it was known to be good might
be enough - so I could track all the 'event's and see where it went
out of sync.

> I don't have more than a few vague guesses about what might have happened. 
> First of all it might be possible that the file systems on the array were not 
> unmounted properly during shutdown because a remote NFS mount was hogging 
> them. If that be the case, LVM couldn't have shut down properly, then the md 
> device wouldn't have stopped and the machine just powered down.
> That would explain it.

Maybe but even shutting down with the array still active shouldn't
cause the event counts to go out of sync.  It should just trigger a
resync.

NeilBrown
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux RAID Wiki]     [ATA RAID]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Linux Block]     [Linux IDE]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux Hams]     [Device Mapper]     [Device Mapper Cryptographics]     [Kernel]     [Linux Admin]     [Linux Net]     [GFS]     [RPM]     [git]     [Yosemite Forum]


  Powered by Linux