Thanks for the help Chris, > Have you told us the entire story about how you got into > this situation? I think I have but I can see how it can be confusing since I have provided non requested info - including old records from where arrays were working (more on that below). Basically the system was moved meaning it was offline for a few days, on first boot after the move I ended up with md128 and md129 inactive > Have you use 'mdadm create' trying to fix this? If you > haven't, don't do it. I haven't > I see a lot of conflicting information. For example: > >> /dev/md129: >> Version : 1.2 >> Creation Time : Mon Nov 10 16:28:11 2014 >> Raid Level : raid0 >> Array Size : 1572470784 (1499.63 GiB 1610.21 GB) >> Raid Devices : 3 >> Total Devices : 3 >> Persistence : Superblock is persistent >> >> Update Time : Mon Nov 10 16:28:11 2014 >> State : clean >> Active Devices : 3 >> Working Devices : 3 >> Failed Devices : 0 >> Spare Devices : 0 >> >> Chunk Size : 512K >> >> Name : lamachine:129 (local to host lamachine) >> UUID : 895dae98:d1a496de:4f590b8b:cb8ac12a >> Events : 0 >> >> Number Major Minor RaidDevice State >> 0 8 50 0 active sync /dev/sdd2 >> 1 8 66 1 active sync /dev/sde2 >> 2 8 82 2 active sync /dev/sdf > > > >>> /dev/md129: >>> Version : 1.2 >>> Raid Level : raid0 >>> Total Devices : 1 >>> Persistence : Superblock is persistent >>> >>> State : inactive >>> >>> Name : lamachine:129 (local to host lamachine) >>> UUID : 895dae98:d1a496de:4f590b8b:cb8ac12a >>> Events : 0 >>> >>> Number Major Minor RaidDevice >>> >>> - 8 50 - /dev/sdd2 > > > The same md device, one raid0 one raid5. The same sdd2, one in the > raid0, and it's also in the raid5. Which is true? So the first record for /dev/md129 is from the time the array was working ok and the second is the current status. I think both records shows Raid Level: raid0 > It sounds to me like > you've tried recovery and did something wrong; or about as bad is > you've had these drives in more than one software raid setup, and you > didn't zero out old superblocks first. The only thing that comes to mind is that at first the system wasn't coming up because so I tried to boot from individual drives while trying to locate the boot device. > Maybe start out with 'mdadm -D' on everything... literally everything, > every whole drive (i.e. /dev/sdd, /dev/sdc, all of them) and also > everyone of their partitions; and see if it's possible to sort out > this mess. Will run on devices "a to f" On 13 September 2016 at 21:13, Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > An invalid backup GPT suggests it was stepped on by something that was > used on the whole block device. The backup GPT is at the end of the > drive. And if you were to use mdadm create on the entire drive rather > than a partition, you'd step on that GPT and also incorrectly recreate > the array. Have you told us the entire story about how you got into > this situation? Have you use 'mdadm create' trying to fix this? If you > haven't, don't do it. > > I see a lot of conflicting information. For example: > >> /dev/md129: >> Version : 1.2 >> Creation Time : Mon Nov 10 16:28:11 2014 >> Raid Level : raid0 >> Array Size : 1572470784 (1499.63 GiB 1610.21 GB) >> Raid Devices : 3 >> Total Devices : 3 >> Persistence : Superblock is persistent >> >> Update Time : Mon Nov 10 16:28:11 2014 >> State : clean >> Active Devices : 3 >> Working Devices : 3 >> Failed Devices : 0 >> Spare Devices : 0 >> >> Chunk Size : 512K >> >> Name : lamachine:129 (local to host lamachine) >> UUID : 895dae98:d1a496de:4f590b8b:cb8ac12a >> Events : 0 >> >> Number Major Minor RaidDevice State >> 0 8 50 0 active sync /dev/sdd2 >> 1 8 66 1 active sync /dev/sde2 >> 2 8 82 2 active sync /dev/sdf > > > >>> /dev/md129: >>> Version : 1.2 >>> Raid Level : raid0 >>> Total Devices : 1 >>> Persistence : Superblock is persistent >>> >>> State : inactive >>> >>> Name : lamachine:129 (local to host lamachine) >>> UUID : 895dae98:d1a496de:4f590b8b:cb8ac12a >>> Events : 0 >>> >>> Number Major Minor RaidDevice >>> >>> - 8 50 - /dev/sdd2 > > > The same md device, one raid0 one raid5. The same sdd2, one in the > raid0, and it's also in the raid5. Which is true? It sounds to me like > you've tried recovery and did something wrong; or about as bad is > you've had these drives in more than one software raid setup, and you > didn't zero out old superblocks first. If you leave old signatures > intact you end up with this sort of ambiguity, which signature is > correct. So now you have to figure out which one is correct and which > one is wrong... > > Maybe start out with 'mdadm -D' on everything... literally everything, > every whole drive (i.e. /dev/sdd, /dev/sdc, all of them) and also > everyone of their partitions; and see if it's possible to sort out > this mess. > > > Chris Murphy -- 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
