If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
no answers on "Recovery on a RAID6/Gentoo/mdadm? Active drive is marked as spare."?
Hi again.
I still kept my old HDDs in hope someone could help me with the problem I was writing about. Is there no hope for the lost data? Following a tip in another forum, I tried a mdadm --create --assume- clean on the copies of the HDDs, it warned me that the Disks are in a RAID and then created a clean empty RAID on it, so I deleted the copies - I still have the original HDDs though. Following is a copy of my original posting. many thanks Anja ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am new to this group but I am desperate to find some hope or maybe even an answer to a problem I have now for 3 days. I used to have a 700 GB RAID6 on a Gentoo Server (made with 7 HDDs) and sine it was a RAID6, I figured I can put some data on it that is quite valuable like my personal files folder. Guess this was stupid and I will probably rather use a mirrored drive and to daily backups with backular or rsync in the future, but this will not help me right now: Some days ago, I lost one of the HDDs, which was more or less ok, since I still had 6/5 so I postponed the purchase of a new HDD until payday. The bad thing however happened and a second drive went offline at the beginning of last week, probably due to the summer heat. As I noticed this, I turned off the Server and bought a new HDD, put it in and rebooted. I added it to the raid and it started recovering. Now things started to go wrong: The PC crashed (lockup) at about 2% of the recovery and I had to turn it off. Upon reboot, Only 3 drives (plus the new one showed up in /proc/mdstat and the RAID would not start. However I checked for the other drives of the array and they where there (ls /dev/hd*) and also had a valid superblock (mdadm -E / dev/hd*). The superblocks told me however, that 5 drives where in "active sync", 2 where missing. Now I probably made a big mistake and did (after trying mdadm -- assemble) a "mdadm --add /dev/md0 /dev/hd*" on one of the drives that where for some reason not in the RAID. It was added as "spare" to the RAID, not as a regular drive (so the Superblocks now told me there where 5 drives in "active sync", one "spare" and two "missing"). I am not sure if I did use --re-add or just --add, in any case it was bad. Shortly after this, I recognized the problem with the missing drives as a matter of faulty ATA-Controllers, since depending on which controller a drive was plugged in, it was recognized by /proc/mdstat or not upon reboot. So I got a really big SATA drive, plugged it in and did subsequently a "dd if=/dev/hd*1 of=/mnt/satadrive/hd*1" to make backups of the partitions of the RAID drives. I used only one at a time on a working controller (and dumped the faulty controllers). After a day of dd'ing, I did "losetup /dev/loop* /mnt/hd*1" on all the 5 partition mirrors and tried to assemble a RAID from it (mdadm -- assemble /dev/md0 /dev/loop1 /dev/loop2/ ...). It said "assemble from 4 drives and 1 spare" and did not start of course, since I need 5 drives. I was getting desperate and tried a tool called mddump to show me the superblocks of the partitions. As mdadm said, 4 drives where rather ok (showing up as "active sync" in mdadm -E however) and one was maked as spare. I made backups of the SBs and tried to modify the one of the spare drive. There where 5 drives listed as ok, but only 4 drives existed, one was just not there, so I put that drives device number (and major/minor number) on the device claiming to be a spare and tried to assemble the RAID again. This time, I got an "IO-Error" and of course no RAID. So I put the backups of the superblocks back and started to think about ways to get the lost Data back from a couple of DVDs, CDs or Memorysticks, where little bits of the data may still have had copies (about 1-2% of the data). Recovery on a RAID6/Gentoo/mdadm? Active drive is marked as spare. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
no answers on "Recovery on a RAID6/Gentoo/mdadm? Active drive is marked as spare."?
In article .com,
wrote: Hi again. I still kept my old HDDs in hope someone could help me with the problem I was writing about. Is there no hope for the lost data? You could try to reassemble the original array from the working drives or from your large sata drive partitions via madm --level=faulty. Frankly, though, this looks like a case of "restore from tape". Or maybe try echo "clean" /sys/block/md0/md/array_state If /proc/mdstat looks ok you could try and mount /dev/md0. I don't know if this will work on raid6 or in an array that's actually damaged and not just confused, and I wouldn't try it on your only copy of the real data... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Recovery on a RAID6/Gentoo/mdadm? Active drive is marked as spare. | [email protected] | Storage & Hardrives | 0 | July 21st 07 01:36 PM |
GA-7DPXDWP "Promise RAID (Chipset 20276) MBFastTrak 133 Lite" [BIOS V2.00.1.21] Problems/Answers | Jim Dalton | Gigabyte Motherboards | 0 | April 3rd 06 02:01 AM |
Downside of changing "Max frames to render ahead"/"Prerender Limit" to 1/0? | Jeremy Reaban | Nvidia Videocards | 2 | March 31st 06 04:24 AM |
The science of Data Recovery according to "Mr. Stack" | [email protected] | Storage & Hardrives | 0 | October 18th 05 11:25 PM |