On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 6:14 AM, Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2009, Troy Cauble wrote:
>
>> I recently upgraded an Ubuntu box and noticed that my drives got reordered
>> (possibly by a SATA driver change) and my RAID-1 is degraded.
>>
>> Originally...
>> My (PATA) OS drive had some other partitions and *was* known as /dev/sda.
>> My (SATA) raid-1 /home *was* made from /dev/sdb and /dev/sdc.
>>
>> Now my OS drive is sdc with side effects like mounting some sdc partitions
>> on my old sda mount points. (not a big deal)
>>
>> The real problem is the RAID-1. I think the following 3 queries say:
>> 1) the raid is running with SDA, with the other drive removed.
>> 2) SDA is clean and part of md0
>> 3) SDB is "clean", but part of a raid that doesn't exist.
>>
>>
>> Quote:
>> mastershake:~> sudo mdadm --detail /dev/md0
>> /dev/md0:
>> Version : 00.90.03
>> Creation Time : Sun Jan 2 12:53:01 2005
>> Raid Level : raid1
>> Array Size : 244195904 (232.88 GiB 250.06 GB)
>> Used Dev Size : 244195904 (232.88 GiB 250.06 GB)
>> Raid Devices : 2
>> Total Devices : 1
>> Preferred Minor : 0
>> Persistence : Superblock is persistent
>>
>> Update Time : Sun Jan 18 23:33:56 2009
>> State : clean, degraded
>> Active Devices : 1
>> Working Devices : 1
>> Failed Devices : 0
>> Spare Devices : 0
>>
>> UUID : 61645020:223a69dc:12d77363:0c0f047d
>> Events : 0.5125062
>>
>> Number Major Minor RaidDevice State
>> 0 8 1 0 active sync /dev/sda1
>> 1 0 0 1 removed
>>
>>
>> Quote:
>> mastershake:~> sudo mdadm --examine /dev/sda1
>> /dev/sda1:
>> Magic : a92b4efc
>> Version : 00.90.00
>> UUID : 61645020:223a69dc:12d77363:0c0f047d
>> Creation Time : Sun Jan 2 12:53:01 2005
>> Raid Level : raid1
>> Used Dev Size : 244195904 (232.88 GiB 250.06 GB)
>> Array Size : 244195904 (232.88 GiB 250.06 GB)
>> Raid Devices : 2
>> Total Devices : 1
>> Preferred Minor : 0
>>
>> Update Time : Sun Jan 18 23:34:36 2009
>> State : clean
>> Active Devices : 1
>> Working Devices : 1
>> Failed Devices : 1
>> Spare Devices : 0
>> Checksum : e627430d - correct
>> Events : 0.5125064
>>
>>
>> Number Major Minor RaidDevice State
>> this 0 8 1 0 active sync /dev/sda1
>>
>> 0 0 8 1 0 active sync /dev/sda1
>> 1 1 0 0 1 faulty removed
>> Quote:
>>
>>
>> mastershake:~> sudo mdadm --examine /dev/sdb1
>> /dev/sdb1:
>> Magic : a92b4efc
>> Version : 00.90.00
>> UUID : 61645020:223a69dc:12d77363:0c0f047d
>> Creation Time : Sun Jan 2 12:53:01 2005
>> Raid Level : raid1
>> Used Dev Size : 244195904 (232.88 GiB 250.06 GB)
>> Array Size : 244195904 (232.88 GiB 250.06 GB)
>> Raid Devices : 2
>> Total Devices : 2
>> Preferred Minor : 0
>>
>> Update Time : Tue Sep 16 07:38:13 2008
>> State : clean
>> Active Devices : 2
>> Working Devices : 2
>> Failed Devices : 0
>> Spare Devices : 0
>> Checksum : e5808830 - correct
>> Events : 0.5048904
>>
>>
>> Number Major Minor RaidDevice State
>> this 1 8 33 1 active sync /dev/sdc1
>>
>> 0 0 8 17 0 active sync /dev/sdb1
>> 1 1 8 33 1 active sync /dev/sdc1
>>
>>
>> I've touched files on the degraded md0, so sdb is out-of-date.
>>
>> So what's the safest way to fix this? I've never had to rebuild before.
>>
>> Do I need to fail, remove, then add sdb? Can I
>> mdadm -f /dev/md0 /dev/sdb1
>> if md0 doesn't thinks sdb is part of it?
>>
>> Or does "removed" in the md0 output mean I don't need to
>> fail and remove, just add?
>>
>> Or do I need to "assemble"? I really don't understand when to use what.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -troy
>
> 1. mdadm /dev/md0 --fail /dev/sdb1
> 2. mdadm /dev/md0 -r /dev/sdb1
> 3. sfdisk -d /dev/sda | sfdisk /dev/sdb
> 4. mdadm /dev/md0 -a /dev/sdb1
> 5. mdadm --examine --scan >> /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf
>
> Justin.
Thanks very much!
If I understand the documentation, this is essentially treating
sdb1 as a new drive and sda1 will be copied too it.
I'd also like to understand if/when --assemble might be appropriate for
these scenarios. The man page says Assemble means
"Assemble the components of a previously created array into an
active array."
My two drives were part of a previous array that are no longer
associated for some reason. I *assume* that sdb1 still has a
good file system, just slightly out of date files, since I used the
degraded array.
Is it that assemble wouldn't know which version is correct?
Is it that assemble isn't used for recovery scenarios?
Is it that sdb1 might be worse than I assume?
Thanks,
-troy
--
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
