I am aware of the danger. Thank you also for your help.On Mon, 1 Jul 2024 11:33:16 +0200 Adam Niescierowicz <adam.niescierowicz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Is there a way to force state=active in the metadata? From what I saw each drive have exactly the same Events: 48640 and Update Time so data on the drive should be the same.The most important: I advice you to clone disks to have a safe space for practicing. Whatever you will do is risky now, we don't want to make situation worse. My suggestions might be destructible and I don't want to take responsibility of making it worse.
We have --dump and --restore functionality, I've never used it (I mainly IMSM focused) so I can just point you that it is there and it is an option to clone metadata. native metadata keep both spares and data in the same array, and we can see that spare states for those 3 devices are consistently reported on every drive. It means that at some point metadata with missing disk states updated to spares has been written to the all array members (including spares) but it does not mean that the data is consistent. You are recovering from error scenario and whatever is there, you need to be read for the worst case. The brute-force method would be to recreate an array with same startup parameters and --assume-clean flag but this is risky. Probably your array was initially created few years (and mdadm versions) so there could be small differences in the array parameters mdadm sets now. Anyway, I see it as the simplest option.
In my situation this is fresh config like 2 weeks and I can install exactly the same mdadm version.
If there will be no other way to process I will try to create
array --force --assume-clean
We can try to start array manually by setting sysfs values, however it will require well familiarize with mdadm code so would be time consuming.What can I do to start this array?You may try to add them manually. I know that there is --re-add functionality but I've never used it. Maybe something like that would work: #mdadm --remove /dev/md126 <failed drive> #mdadm --re-add /dev/md126 <failed_drive>I tried this but didn't help.Please provide a logs then (possibly with -vvvvv) maybe I or someone else would help.
Logs
---
# mdadm --run -vvvvv /dev/md126
mdadm: failed to start array /dev/md/card1pport2chassis1:
Input/output error
# mdadm --stop /dev/md126
mdadm: stopped /dev/md126
# mdadm --assemble --force -vvvvv /dev/md126 /dev/sdq1 /dev/sdv1
/dev/sdr1 /dev/sdu1 /dev/sdz1 /dev/sdx1 /dev/sdk1 /dev/sds1
/dev/sdm1 /dev/sdn1 /dev/sdw1 /dev/sdt1
mdadm: looking for devices for /dev/md126
mdadm: /dev/sdq1 is identified as a member of /dev/md126, slot -1.
mdadm: /dev/sdv1 is identified as a member of /dev/md126, slot 1.
mdadm: /dev/sdr1 is identified as a member of /dev/md126, slot 6.
mdadm: /dev/sdu1 is identified as a member of /dev/md126, slot -1.
mdadm: /dev/sdz1 is identified as a member of /dev/md126, slot 11.
mdadm: /dev/sdx1 is identified as a member of /dev/md126, slot 9.
mdadm: /dev/sdk1 is identified as a member of /dev/md126, slot -1.
mdadm: /dev/sds1 is identified as a member of /dev/md126, slot 7.
mdadm: /dev/sdm1 is identified as a member of /dev/md126, slot 3.
mdadm: /dev/sdn1 is identified as a member of /dev/md126, slot 2.
mdadm: /dev/sdw1 is identified as a member of /dev/md126, slot 4.
mdadm: /dev/sdt1 is identified as a member of /dev/md126, slot 0.
mdadm: added /dev/sdv1 to /dev/md126 as 1
mdadm: added /dev/sdn1 to /dev/md126 as 2
mdadm: added /dev/sdm1 to /dev/md126 as 3
mdadm: added /dev/sdw1 to /dev/md126 as 4
mdadm: no uptodate device for slot 5 of /dev/md126
mdadm: added /dev/sdr1 to /dev/md126 as 6
mdadm: added /dev/sds1 to /dev/md126 as 7
mdadm: no uptodate device for slot 8 of /dev/md126
mdadm: added /dev/sdx1 to /dev/md126 as 9
mdadm: no uptodate device for slot 10 of /dev/md126
mdadm: added /dev/sdz1 to /dev/md126 as 11
mdadm: added /dev/sdq1 to /dev/md126 as -1
mdadm: added /dev/sdu1 to /dev/md126 as -1
mdadm: added /dev/sdk1 to /dev/md126 as -1
mdadm: added /dev/sdt1 to /dev/md126 as 0
mdadm: /dev/md126 assembled from 9 drives and 3 spares - not
enough to start the array.
---
Can somebody explain me behavior of the array? (theory)
This is RAID-6 so after two disk are disconnected it still works
fine. Next when third disk disconnect the array should stop as
faulty, yes?
If array stop as faulty the data on array and third disconnected
disk should be the same, yes?
-- --- Thanks Adam Nieścierowicz
begin:vcard fn;quoted-printable:Adam Nie=C5=9Bcierowicz n;quoted-printable:Nie=C5=9Bcierowicz;Adam email;internet:adam.niescierowicz@xxxxxxxxxx x-mozilla-html:TRUE version:2.1 end:vcard
