Re: mdadm raid6 recovery status

[NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3790 bytes --]

On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 18:47:14 +0000 "Paramasivam, Meenakshisundaram"
<mparamas@iupui.edu> wrote:

> 
> Clarification:
> >>should I do new array creation 
> I meant running newfs on assembled 12 TB array, and restore data from backup, to resolve "df" reporting problem.

I would suggest asking on 
    linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org

be sure to give lots of details - kernel version etc.
It would be worth running 
   fsck -n /dev/md2
first and see if it reports anything strange.
Maybe  just a fsck will fix it.

NeilBrown


> 
> ________________________________________
> From: Paramasivam, Meenakshisundaram
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 1:33 PM
> To: NeilBrown
> Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: RE: mdadm raid6 recovery status
> 
> Good news: Got ALL of our data back. [Actually it was 4.96TB not 7TB].
>                      mdadm is a good one.
> 
> Bad news: "df" is reporting wrong, while "du" is showing full size.
> # df -kl /myarray
> Filesystem           1K-blocks      Used Available Use% Mounted on
> /dev/md2             11537161976    162432 10950945196   1% /myarray
> # du -sk /myarray
> 5326133556      /myarray
> #
> 
> I never looked into du or looked in depth of the files & folders and simply got mislead by reported "df" usage; data was there all along. We definitely want "df" for the array's filesystem (ext3) to report right.
> 
> Now that we are backing up all of the data (at 400 Mbps) over network, I want to know if "df" reporting can be fixed easily or should I do new array creation and restore data from backup.
> 
> We are ordering a new RAID card, just to be on safer side.
> 
> Sundar
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: NeilBrown [neilb@suse.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 7:27 PM
> To: Paramasivam, Meenakshisundaram
> Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: mdadm raid6 recovery status
> 
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:49:18 +0000 "Paramasivam, Meenakshisundaram"
> <mparamas@iupui.edu> wrote:
> 
> > [root@in-rady-neuro9 ~]# df -kl /myarray
> > Filesystem           1K-blocks      Used Available Use% Mounted on
> > /dev/md2             11537161976    162432 10950945196   1% /myarray
> > Should be 7TB of used space.
> 
> This is bad.  Something has happened to your filesystem.
> It is almost as though someone ran "mkfs" on the array.
> I don't know much about recovery after such an action, but I doubt you
> will get much back.
> 
> >
> > [root@in-rady-neuro9 ~]# cat /proc/partitions
> > major minor  #blocks  name
> >
> >    8        0  438960128 sda
> >    8        1     512000 sda1
> >    8        2   51200000 sda2
> >    8        3  387247104 sda3
> >    8       16 1953514584 sdb
> >    8       32 1953514584 sdc
> >    8       48 1953514584 sdd
> >    8       64 1953514584 sde
> >    8       80 1953514584 sdf
> >    8       96 1953514584 sdg
> >    8      112 1953514584 sdh
> >    8      128 1953514584 sdi
> >  253        0  346226688 dm-0
> >  253        1   40992768 dm-1
> 
> No md2 ???
> 
> >
> > sd[b-i] are raid devices
> >
> > [root@in-rady-neuro9 ~]# mdadm --detail /dev/md2
> > /dev/md2:
> >         Version : 0.90
> >   Creation Time : Fri Dec 16 17:56:14 2011
> >      Raid Level : raid6
> >      Array Size : 11721086976 (11178.10 GiB 12002.39 GB)
> >   Used Dev Size : 1953514496 (1863.02 GiB 2000.40 GB)  <<<====== Wrong! Should be 7TB of used array space.
> 
> "Used Dev Size" isn't "how much of the array is used by the filesystem" -
> mdadm doesn't know anything about filesystems.
> It is "How much of each individual device is used by the array", which is
> usually a little less than the size of the smallest device.
> So 2TB is correct here.
> 
> 
> NeilBrown
> 
> 


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 828 bytes --]