2023年9月22日 · Stack Exchange Network. Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

I hope you also realised that the old contents will be wiped in the process, so you might want to create a new array with one device missing (use mdadm --level=10 --raid-devices=8 --missing /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdc1 /dev/sdd1 /dev/sde1 /dev/sdf1 /dev/sdg1 /dev/sdh1). Then format the filesystem on the new array volume and copy all data from /dev/sda1 ...

sudo mdadm --detail /dev/md0 State : clean, degraded Number Major Minor RaidDevice State 0 0 0 0 removed 1 8 32 1 active sync /dev/sdc 3 8 48 2 active sync /dev/sdd 0 8 16 - faulty spare /dev/sdb Details show us the removal of the first disk and here we can see the true order of the disks in the array.

Well, mdadm --stop /dev/md0 might take care of your busy messages, I think that's why its complaining. Then you can try your assemble line again. If it doesn't work, --stop again followed by assemble with --run (without run, --assemble --scan won't start a degraded array). Then you can remove and re-add your failed disk to let it attempt a rebuild.

2017年4月13日 · It was suggested to me that the old superblocks of the raid arrays might be left behind causing MD to think it is a real array and thus binding the disks. The suggested solution was to use mdadm --zero-superblock to clear the superblock on the affected disks. However, I don't really know what this does with the disk.

$ mdadm --detail /dev/md1 mdadm: metadata format 00.90 unknown, ignored. mdadm: metadata format 00.90 unknown, ignored. /dev/md1: Version : 00.90 Creation Time : Thu May 20 12:32:25 2010 Raid Level : raid1 Array Size : 1454645504 (1387.26 GiB 1489.56 GB) Used Dev Size : 1454645504 (1387.26 GiB 1489.56 GB) Raid Devices : 3 Total Devices : 3 ...

2019年4月29日 · LVM and mdadm / dmraid are both offering software RAID functionality on Linux. This is pretty much a follow-up post to this question from 2014. Back then, @derobert recommends to prefer mdadm over LVM raid for it's matureness - but that was over 4 years ago. I can imagine, things have changed since then.

Synology has a customized version the md driver and mdadm toolsets that adds a 'DriveError' flag to the rdev->flags structure in the kernel. Net effect - if you are unfortunate enough to get a array

2014年10月26日 · Tested expanding a raid-10 on a ubuntu 16.04 VM. Setting up 4-disk raid-10. cladmin@ubuntu:~$ lsblk -o NAME,SIZE,FSTYPE,TYPE,MOUNTPOINT NAME SIZE FSTYPE TYPE MOUNTPOINT sda 10G disk ├─sda1 8G ext4 part / ├─sda2 1K part └─sda5 2G swap part [SWAP] sdb 10G disk └─sdb1 10G part sdc 10G disk └─sdc1 10G part sdd 10G disk └─sdd1 …

Personally I always go MD+LVM. It is faster (MD can do parallel reads in RAID1) and it requires only 2 disks (if you do not want to rebuild the mirror after every reboot) and MD is designed just to do RAID, and it does it very well.