[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: RaidFrame errors
On 3 June 2013 16:35, Greg Oster <oster%netbsd.org@localhost> wrote:
> raid0 is a RAID 1 set, yes?
>> At that point the / raid1 was running on wd0 and wd1 and had the
> By this you mean a RAID 1 set for / ?
Yes, the device /dev/raid0 which is a RAID 1 set and is mounted on /.
> If I had to guess, I'd bet that at some point a component label didn't
> get written to wd0 for the RAID 5 set, and that caused it to be marked
> as 'failed' on a subsequent boot.
That sounds right. When I build the RAID 5 set originally I built it
with wd1, wd2 and wd3 (using wd0 to bootstrap it) and then added wd0
in after it was working. So it looks like I didn't reboot and check
the array was working properly after adding wd0 to it. Not good.
>> My reading of the situation is that raidframe in incorrectly failing
>> the part of the raid5 on wd0 due to read errors on wd1.
> No.... wd0 had failed before, and hadn't been in use. For how long, I
> have no idea, but my guess would be for at least a few reboots. Read
> errors on wd1 are causing issues with getting wd0 to rebuild.
> Good luck!
> Greg Oster
Thank you Greg, it makes a lot more sense to me now.
Main Index |
Thread Index |