This is very odd. When trying to force an assemble, it's syaing no superblock on /dev/sdf1, but the --examine output appears to say otherwise… Does anyone have any idea how to do this without doing a re-creation?
eduardo ~ # mdadm --examine /dev/sd{f,g,e,a}1 | egrep 'Event|/dev/sd'
/dev/sdf1:
Events : 25979
this 5 8 81 5 spare /dev/sdf1
0 0 8 33 0 active sync /dev/sdc1
2 2 8 65 2 active sync /dev/sde1
4 4 8 1 4 active sync /dev/sda1
5 5 8 81 5 spare /dev/sdf1
/dev/sdg1:
Events : 25971
this 1 8 17 1 active sync /dev/sdb1
0 0 8 33 0 active sync /dev/sdc1
1 1 8 17 1 active sync /dev/sdb1
2 2 8 65 2 active sync /dev/sde1
4 4 8 1 4 active sync /dev/sda1
5 5 8 81 5 spare /dev/sdf1
/dev/sde1:
Events : 25979
this 2 8 65 2 active sync /dev/sde1
0 0 8 33 0 active sync /dev/sdc1
2 2 8 65 2 active sync /dev/sde1
4 4 8 1 4 active sync /dev/sda1
5 5 8 81 5 spare /dev/sdf1
/dev/sda1:
Events : 25979
this 4 8 1 4 active sync /dev/sda1
0 0 8 33 0 active sync /dev/sdc1
2 2 8 65 2 active sync /dev/sde1
4 4 8 1 4 active sync /dev/sda1
5 5 8 81 5 spare /dev/sdf1
eduardo ~ #
On May 1, 2013, at 11:59 AM, Gimpbully <gimpbully@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Alright, so I've ddrescued 2 disks now:
> sda - clean
> sdb - SMART errors, kicked out of array
> sdc - SMART errors, kicked out of array
> sde - ddrescued copy of sdb
> sdf - original failed disk, replaced. is now a ddrescued copy of sdc
>
> So I run
>
> eduardo ~ # mdadm --assemble --force /dev/md127 /dev/sd{f,g,e,a}1
> mdadm: cannot open device /dev/sdf1: Device or resource busy
> mdadm: /dev/sdf1 has no superblock - assembly aborted
> eduardo ~ #
>
> Any ideas?
>
> On Apr 30, 2013, at 7:48 AM, Gimpbully <gimpbully@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> I have no intentions of recreating at all. I fully understand the implications (I've had stripe orders go bad on truly massive scales before, I don't ever wanna experience that again), I just don't know mdadm as well as other vendor storage.
>>
>> I was able to ddrescue a copy of sdb with no errors. I assembled the array and got a file system metadata dump (this is HUGE) and it's currently rebuilding before I even look at data. Thank you all for your help, patience was absolutely key here.
>>
>>
>> On Apr 30, 2013, at 7:45 AM, Phil Turmel <philip@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/30/2013 02:20 AM, Sam Bingner wrote:
>>>> On Apr 29, 2013, at 4:33 PM, "Gimpbully" <gimpbully@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 13, 2013, at 7:20 AM, Sam Bingner <sam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> After that you can try to recreate the array with the proper
>>>>>> order (sdc1, sdb1, sde1, missing, sda1) and copy data off or add
>>>>>> the spare in again depending on if you were able to recover all
>>>>>> the data wih GNU ddrescue.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you mean recreate? what's the specific command? something
>>>>> like:
>>>>> mdadm --create --assume-clean --level=5 --raid-devices=5 /dev/md127
>>>>> /dev/sdc1 /dev/sdb1 /sdv/sde1 missing /dev/sda1
>>>>
>>>> Don't recreate it - I said the wrong thing... You want to do an
>>>> assemble on them with force if possible... Recreate is last ditch and
>>>> make sure you have another copy if you do the previous command in
>>>> case it doesn't work right due to offsets etc...
>>>>
>>>> try:
>>>> mdadm --stop /dev/md127
>>>> mdadm --assemble --force /dev/md127 /dev/sd{c,b,e,a}1
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>>> If you DO need to recreate it, what you showed looks correct.
>>>
>>> NO!
>>>
>>> The OP has *not* shared sufficient information on the array members to
>>> say that. Since it has "worked for years", the odds of an offset error
>>> is *very* high. Chunk size defaults are also likely to be different.
>>>
>>> *Complete* output of "mdadm -E" for the array members is needed before
>>> any "--create" operation is attempted. Plus the distro info, kernel
>>> version, and mdadm version .
>>>
>>> Phil
>>
>
--
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
