Re: Requesting help recovering my array

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



root@jackie:/home/rj# /sbin/fdisk -l /dev/sdb
Disk /dev/sdb: 2.73 TiB, 3000592982016 bytes, 5860533168 sectors
Disk model: Hitachi HUS72403
Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 4096 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 4096 bytes
Disklabel type: gpt
Disk identifier: AF5DC5DE-1404-4F4F-85AF-B5574CD9C627

Device     Start        End    Sectors  Size Type
/dev/sdb1   2048 5860532223 5860530176  2.7T Microsoft basic data

root@jackie:/home/rj# cat /sys/block/sdb/sdb1/start  
2048
root@jackie:/home/rj# cat /sys/block/sdb/sdb1/size
5860530176

(I haven't checked all of the drives in the array, just this one.)

Thanks.
--RJ





On Thursday, January 25, 2024 at 06:07:27 AM EST, Pascal Hambourg <pascal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 





On 25/01/2024 at 02:57, Roger Heflin wrote:
> 
> dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdb bs=512 count=1    (for each disk).

I'm afraid it won't help.
As far as I can see, having an MBR signature in the first sector does 
not prevent blkid or mdadm from detecting the RAID superblock.
Also, previous mail from the OP show that the disks have GPT partition 
tables (as expected with 3 TiB) which usually span (~16 KiB) beyond the 
beginning of the 1.2 RAID superblock (4 KiB) so I suspect that the RAID 
superblock was overwritten.

A tiny hope is that the RAID member was actually in a partition but the 
geometry in the partition table is wrong or the kernel does not read it 
properly (I have seen this once). You can check the partition table and 
how the kernel sees the partition with

fdisk -l /dev/sdb
cat /sys/block/sdb/sdb1/start
cat /sys/block/sdb/sdb1/size

> On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 7:13 PM RJ Marquette <rjm1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>>
>> It looks like this is what happened after all.  I searched for "MBR Magic aa55" and found someone else with the same issue long ago:  https://serverfault.com/questions/580761/is-mdadm-raid-toast ; Looks like his was caused by a RAID configuration option in BIOS.  I recall seeing that on mine; I must have activated it by accident when setting the boot drive or something.
>>
>> I swapped the old motherboard back in, no improvement, so I'm back to the new one.  I'm now running testdisk to see if I can repair the partition table.





[Index of Archives]     [Linux RAID Wiki]     [ATA RAID]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Linux Block]     [Linux IDE]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux Hams]     [Device Mapper]     [Device Mapper Cryptographics]     [Kernel]     [Linux Admin]     [Linux Net]     [GFS]     [RPM]     [git]     [Yosemite Forum]


  Powered by Linux