All,
After my success yesterday in starting an array from a failed system to get
a few of the reaming hylafax/avantfax files from the drive, I decided to start
the array again and make sure there was nothing else I needed to recover from
the drive. I can't get it to mount today, mount says:
# mount /dev/md126 /mnt/af/
mount: /mnt/af: mount(2) system call failed: Structure needs cleaning.
Huh? Yesterday, when I was done with the fax file recovery, I unplugged the
usb cable attaching the drive to the computer, but did so before I had stopped
the drive. So I plugged it back in and stopped it, then unplugged it again.
All seemed OK.
However, when I tried to create/start the array as I did yesterday, I
noticed this time mdadm created the array with Version=1.2 instead of the
original Version=1.0. It also didn't list the bitmap as internal. Strange.
So rather then messing with it further, I stopped the array, and went back
to the original mdadm -D information to create the array as it was before.
This is the original array detail:
# mdadm -D /dev/md126
/dev/md126:
Version : 1.0
Creation Time : Thu Aug 21 01:43:22 2008
Raid Level : raid1
Array Size : 20972752 (20.00 GiB 21.48 GB)
Used Dev Size : 20972752 (20.00 GiB 21.48 GB)
Raid Devices : 2
Total Devices : 1
Persistence : Superblock is persistent
Intent Bitmap : Internal
Update Time : Fri Oct 20 15:55:58 2017
State : clean, degraded
Active Devices : 1
Working Devices : 1
Failed Devices : 0
Spare Devices : 0
Name : 1
UUID : e45cfbeb:77c2b93b:43d3d214:390d0f25
Events : 19154344
Number Major Minor RaidDevice State
0 8 69 0 active sync /dev/sde5
- 0 0 1 removed
So to create the array again I used:
# mdadm --verbose --create /dev/md126 --level=1 --raid-devices=2 \
--metadata=1.0 --bitmap=internal -o \
--uuid=e45cfbeb:77c2b93b:43d3d214:390d0f25 /dev/sdf5 missing
After creating the array, things look OK, but there is a 16-bytes difference
in the array size and logically, the 'Creation Time' has changed, as well as
the 'Name' field:
# mdadm -D /dev/md126
/dev/md126:
Version : 1.0
Creation Time : Thu Oct 26 19:07:26 2017
Raid Level : raid1
Array Size : 20972736 (20.00 GiB 21.48 GB)
Used Dev Size : 20972736 (20.00 GiB 21.48 GB)
Raid Devices : 2
Total Devices : 1
Persistence : Superblock is persistent
Intent Bitmap : Internal
Update Time : Thu Oct 26 19:07:26 2017
State : clean, degraded
Active Devices : 1
Working Devices : 1
Failed Devices : 0
Spare Devices : 0
Name : valkyrie:126 (local to host valkyrie)
UUID : e45cfbeb:77c2b93b:43d3d214:390d0f25
Events : 0
Number Major Minor RaidDevice State
0 8 85 0 active sync /dev/sdf5
- 0 0 1 removed
So, now I really am stumped (and I didn't solve it during the time I was
writing this e-mail -- this time :). Did something break when I unplugged it
without first stopping it yesterday? Is the 16-byte difference in size what it
considers dirty?
The logs from trying to mount it say there is an overlap with the superblock:
Oct 26 19:26:04 valkyrie kernel: EXT4-fs (md126): mounting ext3 file system
using the ext4 subsystem
Oct 26 19:26:04 valkyrie kernel: EXT4-fs (md126): ext4_check_descriptors:
Block bitmap for group 0 overlaps superblock
Oct 26 19:26:04 valkyrie kernel: EXT4-fs (md126): ext4_check_descriptors:
Inode bitmap for group 0 overlaps superblock
Oct 26 19:26:04 valkyrie kernel: EXT4-fs (md126): ext4_check_descriptors:
Inode table for group 0 overlaps superblock
Oct 26 19:26:04 valkyrie kernel: EXT4-fs (md126): ext4_check_descriptors:
Block bitmap for group 1 overlaps superblock
Oct 26 19:26:04 valkyrie kernel: EXT4-fs (md126): ext4_check_descriptors:
Block bitmap for group 1 not in group (block 0)!
Oct 26 19:26:04 valkyrie kernel: EXT4-fs (md126): group descriptors corrupted!
So I'm a bit stuck. Did I corrupt everything when I created the array
without specifying the version 1.0? (I still have the other drive in the array
-- untouched), but as for this array, is there anything I can do to fix what
the log messages are complaining about and mount it again?
When I get the motherboard back from getting a new set of shiny capacitors,
I had planned on just leaving this drive disconnected, failing it in the
array, and then attempting a re-add (or at this point, is there another way I
should try and pair it back with the saved drive to make sure it doesn't
corrupt the good one?
Sigh... I knew that usb cable rig was just asking for trouble...
--
David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
--
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
