Re: OT - 2 of 4 drives in a Raid10 array failed - Any chance of recovery?

From: Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>
To: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Ow Mun Heng <ow(dot)mun(dot)heng(at)wdc(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: OT - 2 of 4 drives in a Raid10 array failed - Any chance of recovery?
Date: 2009-10-21 06:59:33
Message-ID: alpine.GSO.2.01.0910210236400.1418@westnet.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009, Scott Marlowe wrote:

> Actually, later models of linux have a direct RAID-10 level built in.
> I haven't used it. Not sure how it would look in /proc/mdstat either.

I think I actively block memory of that because the UI on it is so cryptic
and it's been historically much more buggy than the simpler RAID0/RAID1
implementaions. But you're right that it's completely possible Ow used
it. Would explain not being able to figure out what's going on too.

There's a good example of what the result looks like with failed drives in
one of the many bug reports related to that feature at
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/intrepid/+source/linux/+bug/285156 and I
liked the discussion of some of the details here at
http://robbat2.livejournal.com/231207.html

The other hint I forgot to mention is that you should try:

mdadm --examine /dev/XXX

For each of the drives that still works, to help figure out where they fit
into the larger array. That and --detail are what I find myself using
instead of /proc/mdstat , which provides an awful interface IMHO.

--
* Greg Smith gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mike Christensen 2009-10-21 07:17:59 Re: Free Tool to design Postgres Databases
Previous Message Arnaud Lesauvage 2009-10-21 06:47:27 Re: [postgis-users] pgsql2shp : Encoding headache