From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Tyler J. Wagner" Subject: Re: Resolving mdadm built RAID issue Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 20:22:16 +0100 Message-ID: <1310152936.3079.5.camel@baal> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Sandra Escandor Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Fri, 2011-07-08 at 14:07 -0400, Sandra Escandor wrote: > I am trying to help someone out in the field with some RAID issues, and > I'm a bit stuck. The situation is that our server has an ftp server > storing data onto a RAID10. There was an Ethernet connection loss (looks > like it was during an ftp transfer) and then the RAID experienced a > failure. From the looks of the dmesg output below, I suspect that it > could be a member disk failure (perhaps they need to get a new member > disk?). But, even still, this shouldn't cause the RAID to become > completely unusable, since RAID10 should provide redundancy - a resync > would start automatically once a new disk is inserted, correct? It does appear that you've had a disk failure on /dev/sde. However, I can't tell from the dmesg output alone what is the current state of array. Please give us the output of: cat /proc/mdstat mdadm --detail /dev/md126 Simply inserting a new disk will not resync the array. You must add the remove the old disk from the array, and add the new one using: mdadm --fail /dev/sde --remove /dev/sde (insert new disk mdadm --add /dev/sde However, I'm guessing as to your layout. /dev/sde may not be correct if you've partitioned the drives. Then it would may be /dev/sde1, or sde2, etc. Regards, Tyler -- "It is an interesting and demonstrable fact, that all children are atheists and were religion not inculcated into their minds, they would remain so." -- Ernestine Rose