mdadm RAID problem -- won't boot
 

Hi,

I am having a problem booting my system. My boot disk is not a raid array,
however, I do have 4 other disks making a raid 10 array that I mount at /mnt/md0.

My problem is that when I boot my system, I get to a point where it says it
it can't start the degraded array, and asks me if I want to start the degraded
array. If I say yes or no, it always drops me to a shell. At the shell, I do a
"cat /proc/mdadm" and I can see 2 arrays! One is /dev/md0 started, degraded with
only 3 of my disks (sda1, sdc1, sdd1.) The other array is /dev/md127 with the
other disk all by itself (sdb1) and not started. Again, I am booting from a
different disk entirely (sde1.) I tried to remove the md127 array altogether, and
re-add sdb1 into the md0 array, and it syncs up fine. After syncing and seeing
that the md0 array is fine, I reboot. After rebooting, I get the same problem over
and over again.

My question is:
How can I fix this so that I only have one array at /dev/md0 with all 4 disks
synced? Also, how can I bypass this and boot my system without any raid at all so
I can fix that later? I am using ubuntu server 10.04 LTS.

Thanks!
Rick




--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users


Mon Aug 20 20:30:01 2012
Return-Path: <devel-bounces@lists.fedoraproject.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on
eagle542.startdedicated.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,
DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RP_MAT CHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS,
T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-Original-To: tom@linux-archive.org
Delivered-To: tom-linux-archive.org@eagle542.startdedicated.com
Received: from bastion.fedoraproject.org (bastion01.fedoraproject.org [209.132.181.2])
by eagle542.startdedicated.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D26C20E0651
for <tom@linux-archive.org>; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 19:41:07 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from lists.fedoraproject.org (collab03.vpn.fedoraproject.org [192.168.1.70])
by bastion01.phx2.fedoraproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 254FB20848;
Mon, 20 Aug 2012 17:41:05 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from collab03.fedoraproject.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by lists.fedoraproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A69554078D;
Mon, 20 Aug 2012 17:41:04 +0000 (UTC)
X-Original-To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Delivered-To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Received: from smtp-mm02.fedoraproject.org (smtp-mm02.fedoraproject.org
[66.35.62.164])
by lists.fedoraproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F04DC40782
for <devel@lists.fedoraproject.org>;
Mon, 20 Aug 2012 17:41:02 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-we0-f173.google.com (mail-we0-f173.google.com
[74.125.82.173])
by smtp-mm02.fedoraproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F05A3FC33
for <devel@lists.fedoraproject.org>;
Mon, 20 Aug 2012 17:41:02 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by weyz53 with SMTP id z53so4788750wey.32
for <devel@lists.fedoraproject.org>;
Mon, 20 Aug 2012 10:41:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references
:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=MRuy1nIezxhDg+YKVidIbO5waKTdKN36vgegBwYOmgQ=;
b=DvMOjvrZMniW5b/WiSV8DoFAkqkgm5mv6Yqq4mY3UifLF3WC/dQZkouHDxDe5rUwl2
Iov4+Z/u3BL4yGUdqTpjCqQxi/G++IeR37lSRPA5L6CyFmUTKILAzYVj++//Ak+ehDyN
dyBc6miMORncvrIUdPQ0y1NlrANWDxjjIZptYvpfw3zSjQHDNj O6hRYOwtIueUt9/bpy
//MuYdjT1hkrgDmnpy+7B/Dp7kFfaYfmu8WmvAEn3qMEBu61QZQBPY76sx7zLsN1Ax2c
Upn9od+0uKhPWBXaGsKJQOyahOpTYioVIeiCJY9f57tjK3S103 7SzvaU+6GF/1H3d19K
0hjg==
Received: by 10.217.3.1 with SMTP id q1mr7439224wes.38.1345484461806;
Mon, 20 Aug 2012 10:41:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (noc.skyggnir.is. [217.28.190.150])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l5sm43110611wix.5.2012.08.20.10.41.00
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
Mon, 20 Aug 2012 10:41:00 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <50327669.8000202@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 17:39:53 +0000
From: =?UTF-8?B?IkrDs2hhbm4gQi4gR3XDsG11bmRzc29uIg==?=
<johannbg@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
rv:14.0) Gecko/20120717 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL 9.2 for F18?
References: <CAERoc3qixdi+AHOyyKaTTMpx2f0NixiDixeKzL3XSeHPHRcB MA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAERoc3qixdi+AHOyyKaTTMpx2f0NixiDixeKzL3XSeHPHRcB MA@mail.gmail.com>
X-BeenThere: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Development discussions related to Fedora
<devel@lists.fedoraproject.org>
List-Id: Development discussions related to Fedora
<devel.lists.fedoraproject.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/options/devel>,
<mailto:devel-request@lists.fedoraproject.org?subject=unsubscrib e>
List-Archive: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:devel@lists.fedoraproject.org>
List-Help: <mailto:devel-request@lists.fedoraproject.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel>,
<mailto:devel-request@lists.fedoraproject.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
Sender: devel-bounces@lists.fedoraproject.org
Errors-To: devel-bounces@lists.fedoraproject.org

T24gMDgvMjAvMjAxMiAwNDozOCBQTSwgTWljaGHFgiBQaW90cm 93c2tpIHdyb3RlOgo+IEhpLAo+
Cj4gSSBhbSBhd2FyZSB0aGF0IEYxOCBpcyBhIHNwZWNpYWwgcm VsZWFzZSAtIGJhc2UgZm9yIGEg
bmV3IFJIRUwsIHNvIGl0Cj4gaXMgcG9zc2libGUgdGhhdCB5b3 Ugd2lsbCBub3Qgd2FudCB0byBw
dXQgdGhlcmUgbm90IHlldCByZWxlYXNlZAo+IHNvZnR3YXJlLi BQb3N0Z3JlU1FMIDkuMiBkb2Vz
IG5vdCBoYXZlIGFueSB0cnVlIHJldm9sdXRpb25hcnkKPiBmZW F0dXJlcywgYnV0IGl0IGhhcyBx
dWl0ZSBhIGxvbmcgbGlzdCBvZiBpbXByb3ZlbWVudHMKPiBodH RwOi8vd3d3LnBvc3RncmVzcWwu
b3JnL2RvY3MvZGV2ZWwvc3RhdGljL3JlbGVhc2UtOS0yLmh0bW wKPgo+IElzIHRoZXJlIGFueSBj
aGFuY2UgdGhhdCA5LjIgd2lsbCBiZSBhdmFpbGFibGUgZm9yIE YxOD8KCkZpcnN0IGFuZCBmb3Jl
bW9zdCB5b3Ugc2hvdWxkIGZpbGUgYW4gUkZFIGFnYWluc3QgdG hlIHJlbGV2YW50IGNvbXBvbmVu
dCAKdG8gc2VlIGlmIGl0IGNhbiBiZSB1cGdyYWRlZC4KClNlY2 9uZGx5IFJIRUwgc2hvdWxkIG5v
dCBiZSBhIHJlYXNvbiBwYWNrYWdlcyBhcmUgbm90IHVwZGF0ZW QgaW4gRmVkb3JhIAp0byB0aGVp
ciBjdXJyZW50L2xhdGVzdCByZWxlYXNlIGFuZCBvciBvdGhlci Bwcm9ncmVzcyBpcyBtYWRlIHdp
dGhpbiB0aGUgCnByb2plY3Qgbm9yIGlzIEZlZG9yYSB0aGUgcG xhY2UgZm9yIHNvbWV0aGluZyBi
ZWluZyBhc2tlZCB0byBiZSBpbmNsdWRlZCAKaW4gUkhFTC4KCk pCRwotLSAKZGV2ZWwgbWFpbGlu
ZyBsaXN0CmRldmVsQGxpc3RzLmZlZG9yYXByb2plY3Qub3JnCm h0dHBzOi8vYWRtaW4uZmVkb3Jh
cHJvamVjdC5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9kZXZlbA==

mdadm RAID problem -- won't boot
 

On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Rick Bragg <rbragg@gmnet.net> wrote:
>
> I am having a problem booting my system. My boot disk is not a raid array,
> however, I do have 4 other disks making a raid 10 array that I mount at /mnt/md0.
> My problem is that when I boot my system, I get to a point where it says it
> it can't start the degraded array, and asks me if I want to start the degraded
> array. If I say yes or no, it always drops me to a shell. At the shell, I do a
> "cat /proc/mdadm" and I can see 2 arrays! One is /dev/md0 started, degraded with
> only 3 of my disks (sda1, sdc1, sdd1.) The other array is /dev/md127 with the
> other disk all by itself (sdb1) and not started. Again, I am booting from a
> different disk entirely (sde1.) I tried to remove the md127 array altogether, and
> re-add sdb1 into the md0 array, and it syncs up fine. After syncing and seeing
> that the md0 array is fine, I reboot. After rebooting, I get the same problem over
> and over again.
> My question is:
> How can I fix this so that I only have one array at /dev/md0 with all 4 disks
> synced? Also, how can I bypass this and boot my system without any raid at all so
> I can fix that later? I am using ubuntu server 10.04 LTS.

The use of md127 usually means that the array's recognized as a
foreign array. Does "mdadm --examine" on sda1 and sdb1 return the same
"local to host" value on the "Name" line?

Did you zero the superblock before re-adding sdb1?

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

mdadm RAID problem -- won't boot
 

> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Rick Bragg <rbragg@gmnet.net> wrote:
>>
>> I am having a problem booting my system. My boot disk is not a raid array,
>> however, I do have 4 other disks making a raid 10 array that I mount at /mnt/md0.
>> My problem is that when I boot my system, I get to a point where it says it
>> it can't start the degraded array, and asks me if I want to start the degraded
>> array. If I say yes or no, it always drops me to a shell. At the shell, I do a
>> "cat /proc/mdadm" and I can see 2 arrays! One is /dev/md0 started, degraded with
>> only 3 of my disks (sda1, sdc1, sdd1.) The other array is /dev/md127 with the
>> other disk all by itself (sdb1) and not started. Again, I am booting from a
>> different disk entirely (sde1.) I tried to remove the md127 array altogether,
>> and
>> re-add sdb1 into the md0 array, and it syncs up fine. After syncing and seeing
>> that the md0 array is fine, I reboot. After rebooting, I get the same problem
>> over
>> and over again.
>> My question is:
>> How can I fix this so that I only have one array at /dev/md0 with all 4 disks
>> synced? Also, how can I bypass this and boot my system without any raid at all
>> so
>> I can fix that later? I am using ubuntu server 10.04 LTS.
>
> The use of md127 usually means that the array's recognized as a
> foreign array. Does "mdadm --examine" on sda1 and sdb1 return the same
> "local to host" value on the "Name" line?
>
> Did you zero the superblock before re-adding sdb1?
>

I didn't zero the superblock on anything. Should I zero it on sdb1?

for --examine, I'm seeing:
RaidDevice State
0 active sync /dev/sda1
1 faulty removed
2 active sync /dev/sdc1
3 active sync /dev/sdd1
4 spare /dev/sdb1

Not sure why sdb is a spare, and dev 1 is faulty removed...

Also, for mdadm --detail /dev/md0 I see:

RaidDevice State
0 active sync /dev/sda1
1 spare rebuilding /dev/sdb1
2 active sync /dev/sdc1
3 active sync /dev/sdd1

After the spare rebuilds and is active sync like the others, I usually reboot and I
get the same problem all over from the start. Do I need to somehow re-create the
entire array? or zero a superblock somewhere after this syncs?

Thanks again!
Rick







--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

mdadm RAID problem -- won't boot
 

On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Rick Bragg <rbragg@gmnet.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Rick Bragg <rbragg@gmnet.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> I am having a problem booting my system. My boot disk is not a raid array,
>>> however, I do have 4 other disks making a raid 10 array that I mount at /mnt/md0.
>>> My problem is that when I boot my system, I get to a point where it says it
>>> it can't start the degraded array, and asks me if I want to start the degraded
>>> array. If I say yes or no, it always drops me to a shell. At the shell, I do a
>>> "cat /proc/mdadm" and I can see 2 arrays! One is /dev/md0 started, degraded with
>>> only 3 of my disks (sda1, sdc1, sdd1.) The other array is /dev/md127 with the
>>> other disk all by itself (sdb1) and not started. Again, I am booting from a
>>> different disk entirely (sde1.) I tried to remove the md127 array altogether,
>>> and
>>> re-add sdb1 into the md0 array, and it syncs up fine. After syncing and seeing
>>> that the md0 array is fine, I reboot. After rebooting, I get the same problem
>>> over
>>> and over again.
>>> My question is:
>>> How can I fix this so that I only have one array at /dev/md0 with all 4 disks
>>> synced? Also, how can I bypass this and boot my system without any raid at all
>>> so
>>> I can fix that later? I am using ubuntu server 10.04 LTS.
>>
>> The use of md127 usually means that the array's recognized as a
>> foreign array. Does "mdadm --examine" on sda1 and sdb1 return the same
>> "local to host" value on the "Name" line?
>>
>> Did you zero the superblock before re-adding sdb1?
>>
>
> I didn't zero the superblock on anything. Should I zero it on sdb1?
>
> for --examine, I'm seeing:
> RaidDevice State
> 0 active sync /dev/sda1
> 1 faulty removed
> 2 active sync /dev/sdc1
> 3 active sync /dev/sdd1
> 4 spare /dev/sdb1
>
> Not sure why sdb is a spare, and dev 1 is faulty removed...
>
> Also, for mdadm --detail /dev/md0 I see:
>
> RaidDevice State
> 0 active sync /dev/sda1
> 1 spare rebuilding /dev/sdb1
> 2 active sync /dev/sdc1
> 3 active sync /dev/sdd1
>
> After the spare rebuilds and is active sync like the others, I usually reboot and I
> get the same problem all over from the start. Do I need to somehow re-create the
> entire array? or zero a superblock somewhere after this syncs?

I've never seen output from "--examine" like that. It looks like the
first's from when sdb1 is alone in md127 and the second's from when
sdb1 is added to md0 and is resyncing.

Once sdb1 is neither in md0 nor in md127, run "mdadm --force
--zero-superblock /dev/sdb1" and add sdb1 to md0.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users