[elrepo] dead RAID6 array on CentOS6.6 / kernel 3.19
Adam Thompson
athompso at athompso.net
Tue Feb 10 21:53:35 EST 2015
On 2015-02-10 08:39 PM, Phil Turmel wrote:
> Hi Adam,
>
> On 02/10/2015 08:53 PM, Adam Thompson wrote:
>> So, I was doing some work on the new server tonight, stopping/starting
>> NFS caused a kernel panic, and I thought rebooting would be a good
>> idea... Apparently not!
>> Sure enough, no array.
>>> [root at muug ~]# cat /proc/mdstat
>>> Personalities : [raid1] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [raid10]
>>> md0 : active raid1 sdm1[0] sdn1[1]
>>> 1048512 blocks super 1.0 [2/2] [UU]
>>> bitmap: 0/1 pages [0KB], 65536KB chunk
>>>
>>> md127 : inactive sdk[10] sdj[9] sdi[8] sdl[12]
>>> 15627550048 blocks super 1.2
>>>
>>> unused devices: <none>
> Not really no array -- this remnant is inactive. On older kernel /
> mdadm combinations, you have to --stop the inactive array before you try
> again. Please add --verbose to your --assemble --force
>
> If that doesn't work, use a bootable thumb drive with current kernel and
> mdadm and --assemble --force again.
>
> Phil
I do note that the array was stopped before I tried re-assembling it the
first time (second invocation overall). It stopped itself, as can be
seen from the output.
Only with the addition of --no-degraded does the array assemble and
remain assembled but un-started:
> [root at muug ~]# mdadm --verbose --assemble --force --no-degraded
> /dev/md127 /dev/sd[a-l]
> mdadm: looking for devices for /dev/md127
> mdadm: /dev/sda is identified as a member of /dev/md127, slot 11.
> mdadm: /dev/sdb is identified as a member of /dev/md127, slot 2.
> mdadm: /dev/sdc is identified as a member of /dev/md127, slot 1.
> mdadm: /dev/sdd is identified as a member of /dev/md127, slot 3.
> mdadm: /dev/sde is identified as a member of /dev/md127, slot 5.
> mdadm: /dev/sdf is identified as a member of /dev/md127, slot 6.
> mdadm: /dev/sdg is identified as a member of /dev/md127, slot 7.
> mdadm: /dev/sdh is identified as a member of /dev/md127, slot 4.
> mdadm: /dev/sdi is identified as a member of /dev/md127, slot 8.
> mdadm: /dev/sdj is identified as a member of /dev/md127, slot 9.
> mdadm: /dev/sdk is identified as a member of /dev/md127, slot 10.
> mdadm: /dev/sdl is identified as a member of /dev/md127, slot 0.
> mdadm: added /dev/sdc to /dev/md127 as 1
> mdadm: added /dev/sdb to /dev/md127 as 2
> mdadm: added /dev/sdd to /dev/md127 as 3
> mdadm: added /dev/sdh to /dev/md127 as 4
> mdadm: added /dev/sde to /dev/md127 as 5
> mdadm: added /dev/sdf to /dev/md127 as 6 (possibly out of date)
> mdadm: added /dev/sdg to /dev/md127 as 7 (possibly out of date)
> mdadm: added /dev/sdi to /dev/md127 as 8
> mdadm: added /dev/sdj to /dev/md127 as 9
> mdadm: added /dev/sdk to /dev/md127 as 10
> mdadm: added /dev/sda to /dev/md127 as 11 (possibly out of date)
> mdadm: added /dev/sdl to /dev/md127 as 0
> mdadm: /dev/md127 assembled from 9 drives (out of 12), but not started.
Which then gives:
> [root at muug ~]# mdadm --detail /dev/md127
> /dev/md127:
> Version : 1.2
> Raid Level : raid0
> Total Devices : 12
> Persistence : Superblock is persistent
>
> State : inactive
>
> Name : muug.ca:ARRAY (local to host muug.ca)
> UUID : ca23c162:1ba5d5bd:e20e321a:54fc97e0
> Events : 26263
>
> Number Major Minor RaidDevice
>
> - 8 0 - /dev/sda
> - 8 16 - /dev/sdb
> - 8 32 - /dev/sdc
> - 8 48 - /dev/sdd
> - 8 64 - /dev/sde
> - 8 80 - /dev/sdf
> - 8 96 - /dev/sdg
> - 8 112 - /dev/sdh
> - 8 128 - /dev/sdi
> - 8 144 - /dev/sdj
> - 8 160 - /dev/sdk
> - 8 176 - /dev/sdl
and
> [root at muug ~]# cat /proc/mdstat
> Personalities : [raid1] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [raid10]
> md127 : inactive sdl[12](S) sda[13](S) sdk[10](S) sdj[9](S) sdi[8](S)
> sdg[7](S) sdf[6](S) sde[5](S) sdh[4](S) sdd[3](S) sdb[2](S) sdc[1](S)
> 46882650144 blocks super 1.2
>
> md0 : active raid1 sdm1[0] sdn1[1]
> 1048512 blocks super 1.0 [2/2] [UU]
> bitmap: 0/1 pages [0KB], 65536KB chunk
>
> unused devices: <none>
and...
> [root at muug ~]# mdadm --verbose --misc --run --readonly /dev/md127
> mdadm: /dev/md127 does not appear to be active.
Also, kernel 3.19, which I mentioned we're running, pretty much *is* my
definition of an up-to-date kernel... how much newer do you want me to
try, and where would you recommend I find such a thing in a bootable image?
Thanks,
-Adam
--
-Adam Thompson
athompso at athompso.net
+1 (204) 291-7950 - cell
+1 (204) 489-6515 - fax
More information about the elrepo
mailing list