[gentoo-user] raid does not autostart

[gentoo-user] raid does not autostart

[Huib van Wees]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2211 bytes --]

Hi List,

A few weeks ago I created a Raid 5 set for my data partition  using mdadm.

This works fine, but last week a short power outage caused the server to
reboot.

When I came home the server was in need of maintainance because it couldn't
check all his filesystems.

Strange fact was that the md device wasn't start...
mdadm --assemble /dev/md1 works fine, the /etc/mdadm.conf is read the the
raid device is started...

But why doesn't start it at boot?

A piece of output from dmesg:

md: Autodetecting RAID arrays.
md: autorun ...
md: considering hdb1 ...
md:  adding hdb1 ...
md: created md1
md: bind<hdb1>
md: running: <hdb1>
raid5: device hdb1 operational as raid disk 0
raid5: not enough operational devices for md1 (2/3 failed)
RAID5 conf printout:
 --- rd:3 wd:1 fd:2
 disk 0, o:1, dev:hdb1
raid5: failed to run raid set md1
md: pers->run() failed ...
md: do_md_run() returned -5
md: md1 stopped.
md: unbind<hdb1>
md: export_rdev(hdb1)
md: ... autorun DONE.

It tell's me that 2/3 devices failed, but after I assemble it.. the ouput of
mdadm --detail /dev/md1 is:

/dev/md1:
        Version : 00.90.03
  Creation Time : Fri Sep 22 22:28:43 2006
     Raid Level : raid5
     Array Size : 625137152 (596.18 GiB 640.14 GB)
    Device Size : 312568576 (298.09 GiB 320.07 GB)
   Raid Devices : 3
  Total Devices : 3
Preferred Minor : 1
    Persistence : Superblock is persistent

  Intent Bitmap : Internal

    Update Time : Wed Nov 15 10:56:36 2006
          State : active
 Active Devices : 3
Working Devices : 3
 Failed Devices : 0
  Spare Devices : 0

         Layout : left-symmetric
     Chunk Size : 64K

           UUID : 82544aad:a2e92ea2:72ca2d55:716dada0
         Events : 0.1486768

    Number   Major   Minor   RaidDevice State
       0       3       65        0      active sync   /dev/hdb1
       1      22        1        1      active sync   /dev/hdc1
       2      22       65        2      active sync   /dev/hdd1

No failed devices!

How it this possible?
I rebooted aferwards, but still the same issue! :-(

Anybody any clue's?!
Any help is appriciated....

-- 
Met vriendelijke groet / With kind regards,

H. van Wees
---
If UNIX isn't the solution, you've got the wrong problem.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3390 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: raid does not autostart

[Remy Blank]

Huib van Wees wrote:
> md: Autodetecting RAID arrays.
> md: autorun ...
> md: considering hdb1 ...
> md:  adding hdb1 ...
> md: created md1
> md: bind<hdb1>
> md: running: <hdb1>
> raid5: device hdb1 operational as raid disk 0
> 
> raid5: not enough operational devices for md1 (2/3 failed)

You need to mark all the partitions of your RAID array as "Linux raid
autodetect" with fdisk. Here, it seems only hdb1 is marked as such, and
hdc1 and hdd1 are not. This prevents the kernel from autostarting your
RAID array.

Try the following:

# fdisk /dev/hdc
t
1
fd
w
# fdisk /dev/hdd
t
1
fd
w

If this doesn't help, are hdc and hdd on a different IDE controller than
hda and hdb?

-- Remy


Remove underscore and suffix in reply address for a timely response.

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: raid does not autostart

[Huib van Wees]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 786 bytes --]

On 11/15/06, Remy Blank <remy.blank_asps@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> << CUT >>
>
> You need to mark all the partitions of your RAID array as "Linux raid
> autodetect" with fdisk. Here, it seems only hdb1 is marked as such, and
> hdc1 and hdd1 are not. This prevents the kernel from autostarting your
> RAID array.
>
> Try the following:
>
> # fdisk /dev/hdc
> t
> 1
> fd
> w
> # fdisk /dev/hdd
> t
> 1
> fd
> w
>
> If this doesn't help, are hdc and hdd on a different IDE controller than
> hda and hdb?


Dôh! Stupid me!
I shoud know this!

This fixed it, thank you!

Up to the folowing weird issue... (will be in a new post)...

-- 
Met vriendelijke groet / With kind regards,

H. van Wees
---
If UNIX isn't the solution, you've got the wrong problem.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1125 bytes --]