Hi, I'm running 2.6.23.8 x86_64 using mdadm v2.6.4. I was adding a disk (/dev/sdf) to an existing raid5 (/dev/sd[a-e] -> md0)During that reshape (at around 4%) /dev/sdd reported read errors and went offline. I replaced /dev/sdd with a new drive and tried to reassemble the array (/dev/sdd was shown as removed and now as spare).
Assembly worked but it would not run unless I use --force.Since I'm always reluctant to use force I put the bad disk back in, this time as /dev/sdg . I re-added the drive and could run the array. The array started to resync (since the disk can be read until 4%) and then I marked the disk as failed. Now the array is "active, degraded, recovering":
nas:~# mdadm -Q --detail /dev/md0
/dev/md0:
Version : 00.91.03
Creation Time : Sat Sep 15 21:11:41 2007
Raid Level : raid5
Array Size : 1953234688 (1862.75 GiB 2000.11 GB)
Used Dev Size : 488308672 (465.69 GiB 500.03 GB)
Raid Devices : 6
Total Devices : 7
Preferred Minor : 0
Persistence : Superblock is persistent
Update Time : Sat Nov 24 10:10:46 2007
State : active, degraded, recovering
Active Devices : 5
Working Devices : 6
Failed Devices : 1
Spare Devices : 1
Layout : left-symmetric
Chunk Size : 16K
Reshape Status : 19% complete
Delta Devices : 1, (5->6)
UUID : 25da80a6:d56eb9d6:0d7656f3:2f233380
Events : 0.726347
Number Major Minor RaidDevice State
0 8 0 0 active sync /dev/sda
1 8 16 1 active sync /dev/sdb
2 8 32 2 active sync /dev/sdc
6 8 96 3 faulty spare rebuilding /dev/sdg
4 8 64 4 active sync /dev/sde
5 8 80 5 active sync /dev/sdf
7 8 48 - spare /dev/sdd
iostat:
Device: tps kB_read/s kB_wrtn/s kB_read kB_wrtn
sda 129.48 1498.01 1201.59 7520 6032
sdb 134.86 1498.01 1201.59 7520 6032
sdc 127.69 1498.01 1201.59 7520 6032
sdd 0.40 0.00 3.19 0 16
sde 111.55 1498.01 1201.59 7520 6032
sdf 117.73 0.00 1201.59 0 6032
sdg 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
What I find somewhat confusing/disturbing is that does not appear to
utilize /dev/sdd. What I see here could be explained by md doing a
RAID5 resync from the 4 drives sd[a-c,e] to sd[a-c,e,f] but I would
have expected it to use the new spare sdd for that. Also the speed is
unusually low which seems to indicate a lot of seeking as if two
operations are happening at the same time.
Also when I look at the data rates it looks more like the reshape is
continuing even though one drive is missing (possible but risky).
Can someone relief my doubts as to whether md does the right thing here? Thanks, ======================================================================== # _ __ _ __ http://www.nagilum.org/ \n icq://69646724 # # / |/ /__ ____ _(_) /_ ____ _ nagilum@xxxxxxxxxxx \n +491776461165 # # / / _ `/ _ `/ / / // / ' \ Amiga (68k/PPC): AOS/NetBSD/Linux # # /_/|_/\_,_/\_, /_/_/\_,_/_/_/_/ Mac (PPC): MacOS-X / NetBSD /Linux # # /___/ x86: FreeBSD/Linux/Solaris/Win2k ARM9: EPOC EV6 # ======================================================================== ---------------------------------------------------------------- cakebox.homeunix.net - all the machine one needs..
Attachment:
pgppmjT72H0tA.pgp
Description: PGP Digital Signature
