Adam Goryachev wrote, On 17.04.2013 13:32:
On 17/04/13 21:13, Ben Bucksch wrote:
Adam Goryachev wrote, On 17.04.2013 03:35:
Obviously, if they suffered a two disk failure then they won't be here
asking for help will they:)
Wrong, sadly. I suffered a 1 disk failure, and I am here asking for
help. And nobody can give it.
Again: I have a RAID5, and 1 (one) disk failed, so I should be fine, but
I cannot read the data anymore, no way to get at it. That's because md
ejected a good (!) drive to start with,
Actually, I think the real problem here is that you don't know why your
so called good drive was ejected from the array.
I know it doesn't have a fatal hardware failure. See my quote above.
obviously Linux and/or MD has a different opinion.
See my first post. You see that they have the almost same event count,
yet I can't re-add it (considering the fact that another drive failed
entirely).
and refuses to take it back (!).
It probably would have taken it back, although requiring a resync.
It did. And that resync uncovered the failure of the other disk. The
combination trashed my array. The problem is that the first drive should
never have been ejected, so that the failing drive would not be fatal.
Like I said, you need to be patient, and follow the expert advice
provided from the list.
Well, I'm listening. All the info is in my thread:
md RAID5: Disk wrongly marked "spare", need to force re-add it
(And, FYI, being "patient" is difficult when you can't work until the
array is back online.)
This discussion is just a diversion from your
problem, forget the diversion (at least until you get your problem fixed).
I am interested in both: My immediate problem fixed, and that this
problem hever happens again: not for me, and not for anybody else who
isn't aware of it yet.
The problem isn't double disk failure. The problem is bugs in md
implementation.
Or users who expect things to work a certain way, without actually
bothering to find out in advance. Hence their expectation is considered
a bug when really it is just a lack of knowledge.
FWIW; I read a lot about RAID before using it, and I use it since 10
years. RAID5 is supposed to protect against 1 total harddrive failure.
It doesn't. That's a bug, no matter how you put the light on it.
The Linux kernel advises Linux md that the block
device is gone, so Linux md discards the block device and stops trying
to use it. Personally, I don't see that Linux md has a lot of choice in
the matter
True. But often, such errors are temporary. For example, a loose cable.
I must be able to re-add the device as a good device with data. But I
can't, md doesn't let me.
It does actually. You can re-add it, with a resync, or if you ensure
that no writes occurred since the drive was ejected, you can re-add it
without a resync. In addition, even if some writes occurred, if you use
a bitmap, only the newly written blocks need to by resynced.
My case was even more unbelievable: md ejected perfectly good drives
simply because I upgraded the OS. (This happened with 2 independent
arrays, so not coincidence.)
Like I said, the drives were ejected for a reason. You just don't know
what that reason is.
Also, a single sector being unreadable/unwritable doesn't count as "disk
failure" in my book, and shouldn't eject the whole disk. If I have 2
sectors on 2 different disks that are unreadable, md currently trashes
the whole array and doesn't let me read anything at all anymore. That's
obviously broken, but unfortunately the sad reality.
See http://neil.brown.name/blog/20110216044002#1
This is all true, however, I would hope that when this is implemented,
the distributions will properly alert the user that one or more drives
are faulty. One failed write is very frequently indicative of more
failed writes to come. Personally, I would want to replace that drive ASAP.
In addition, the one thing that appeared missing from the blog was the
ability for md to clear the bad blocks list when a drive is replaced,
and rebuild the content of the "bad blocks" from the other members.
(And, BTW, RAID6 doesn't really help with this problem, because it's
quite possible that 3 disks have sectors unreadable/unwritable.)
RAID6 simply improves your odds or chances. There is no RAID level that
can provide a 100% uptime, at some point you have lost too many disks or
too much data, etc. Use the appropriate level of RAID depending on your
risk profile.
Regards,
Adam
--
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
