RE: Degraded Array

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

 




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Majed B. [mailto:majedb@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 10:27 PM
> To: lrhorer@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: linux-raid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Degraded Array
> 
> You have a degraded array now with 1 disk down. If you proceed, more
> disks might pop out due to errors.

	Well, sort of.  A significant fraction of the data is now striped
across 12 + 0 drives, rather than 11 + 1.  There are no errors occurring on
the drives, although of course an unrecoverable error could happen at any
time.

> It's best to backup your data, run a check on the array, fix it then

	The data is backed up.  Except in extreme circumstances, I would
never start a re-shape without a current backup.

> run a check on the array, fix it then, try to resume the reshape.

The array is in good health, other than the two kicked drives.  I'm not sure
I understand what you mean, though.  I'm asking about the two offline
drives.  Should I add the 13th back?  It still has substantially the same
data as the other 12 drives, discounting the amount that has been
re-written.  If so, how can I safely stop the array re-shape and re-add the
drive?  (This is under mdadm 2.6.7.2.)

> 
> On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 5:42 AM, Leslie Rhorer <lrhorer@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hello everyone.
> >
> >             I was just growing one of my RAID6 arrays from 13 to 14
> > members.  The array growth had passed its critical stage and had been
> > growing for several minutes when the system came to a screeching halt.
> > It hit the big red switch, and when the system rebooted, the array

	I meant to type *I*, not *It*.

> > but two members are missing.  One of the members is the new drive and
> the
> > other is the 13th drive in the RAID set.  Of course, the array can run
> well
> > enough with only 12 members, but it?s definitely not the best situation,
> > especially since the re-shape will take another day and a half.  Is it
> best
> > I go ahead and leave the array in its current state until the re-shape
> is
> > done, or should I go ahead and add back the two failed drives?
> >
> > --
> > 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
> 
> 
> 
> --
>        Majed B.

--
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