Hi Phil & Wol and everyone else. I just wanted to say a big thank you, --assemble --force solved the problem and I got the raid running again :-D And now after a fsck I am copying all the data to my new raid1. And what I can see so far I don't seem to have lost anything :-) The new disks were purchased since before (WD Red NAS 10TB), but fortunately they have support for SCT "Error Recovery Control" , "Feature Control" , "Data Table". And "Recovery Control" is set to 70.70, just as mentioned on: https://raid.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Timeout_Mismatch But I will still put that script into the startup of my new server. Once again, a big thanks for all the help! Best regards Rickard Den fre 31 jan. 2020 kl 14:57 skrev Phil Turmel <philip@xxxxxxxxxx>: > > Hi Rickard, > > Good report. > > On 1/30/20 6:48 PM, Rickard Svensson wrote: > > Hello > > > > Excuse me for asking again. > > > > But this is a simpler(?) follow-up question to: > > https://marc.info/?t=157895855400002&r=1&w=2 > > > > In short summary. I had a raid 1 0, there were too many write errors > > on one disk (I call it DiskError1), which I did not notice, and then > > two days later the same problem on another disk (I call it > > DiskError2). > > > > I got good help here, and copy the disk portions of the 2 working > > disks as well as disk DiskError2 with ddrescue to new disks. > > Later I'll create a new raid 1, so I don't plan reuse the same raid 1 0 again. > > > > > > My questions: > > 1) I haven't copied the disk DiskError1, because it is older data, and > > it shouldn't be needed. Or is it better to add that one as well? > > > > 2) Everything looks pretty good :) > > But all disk ar reported as spare disks in /proc/mdstat > > A assume that is because "Events" count is not the same. It is same on > > the good disks(2864) but not DiskError2 (2719). > > No, the array isn't running, so /proc/mdstat isn't complete. Your three > disks all have proper "Active device" roles per --examine. > > > I have been looking how I can "force add" disk DiskError2, use > > "--force" or "--- zero-superblock"? > > Neither --add nor --zero-superblock is appropriate. They will break > your otherwise very good condition. > > > But would prefer to avoid making a mistake now, what has the > > greatest chance of being right :) > > First, ensure you do not have a timeout mismatch as evidenced in your > original thread's smartctl output. The wiki has some advice. Hopefully > your new drives are "NAS" rated and you need no special action. > > Then you should simply use --assemble --force with those three devices. > > That should get you running degraded. Then immediately backup the most > valuable data in the array before doing anything else. > > Finally, --add a fourth device and let your raid rebuild its redundancy. > > When all is safe, consider converting to a more durable redundancy > setup, like raid6, or raid10,near=3. > > Phil
