mdadm RAID5 random read errors. Dying disk?
First the long story:
I have a RAID5 with mdadm on Debian 9. The Raid has 5 Disks, each 4TB of size. 4 of them are HGST Deskstar NAS, and one that came later is a Toshiba N300 NAS.
In the past days I noticed some read errors from that Raid. For example I had a 10GB rar archive in multiple parts. When I try to extract I get CRC errors on some of the parts. If I try it a second time, I get theses errors on other parts. That also happens with Torrents and a re-chack after download.
After a reboot my BIOS noticed me that the S.M.A.R.T status of a HGST drive on SATA Port 3 is bad. smartctl had sayed to me that there are DMA CRC errors, but claims that the Drive is OK.
Another reboot later, I can't see the crc errors in the smart anymore. But now I get this output
smartctl 6.6 2016-05-31 r4324 [x86_64-linux-4.9.0-4-amd64] (local build)
Copyright (C) 2002-16, Bruce Allen, Christian Franke, www.smartmontools.org
=== START OF READ SMART DATA SECTION ===
SMART overall-health self-assessment test result: FAILED!
Drive failure expected in less than 24 hours. SAVE ALL DATA.
Failed Attributes:
ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAG VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE UPDATED WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE
5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct 0x0033 001 001 005 Pre-fail Always FAILING_NOW 1989
As the HGST aren't aviable for normale prices anymore, I bought another Toshiba N300 to replace the HGST. Both are labeled as 4TB. I tryed to make a Partition of the exact same size but it didn't worked. The partition programm claimed that my number is too big (I tried it with bytes and sectors). So I just made the Partition as big as posible. But now it looks like it is the same size, I'm a bit confused.
sdc is the old, and sdh is the new one
Disk /dev/sdc: 3,7 TiB, 4000787030016 bytes, 7814037168 sectors
Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 4096 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 4096 bytes
Disklabel type: gpt
Disk identifier: 4CAD956D-E627-42D4-B6BB-53F48DF8AABC
Device Start End Sectors Size Type
/dev/sdc1 2048 7814028976 7814026929 3,7T Linux RAID
Disk /dev/sdh: 3,7 TiB, 4000787030016 bytes, 7814037168 sectors
Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
Disklabel type: gpt
Disk identifier: 3A173902-47DE-4C96-8360-BE5DBED1EAD3
Device Start End Sectors Size Type
/dev/sdh1 2048 7814037134 7814035087 3,7T Linux filesystem
Currently I have added the new one as a spare disk. The RAID is still working with the old Drive. I still have some read errors, especially on big files.
This is how my RAID Currently looks:
/dev/md/0:
Version : 1.2
Creation Time : Sun Dec 17 22:03:20 2017
Raid Level : raid5
Array Size : 15627528192 (14903.57 GiB 16002.59 GB)
Used Dev Size : 3906882048 (3725.89 GiB 4000.65 GB)
Raid Devices : 5
Total Devices : 6
Persistence : Superblock is persistent
Intent Bitmap : Internal
Update Time : Sat Jan 5 09:48:49 2019
State : clean
Active Devices : 5
Working Devices : 6
Failed Devices : 0
Spare Devices : 1
Layout : left-symmetric
Chunk Size : 512K
Name : SERVER:0 (local to host SERVER)
UUID : 16ee60d0:f055dedf:7bd40adc:f3415deb
Events : 25839
Number Major Minor RaidDevice State
0 8 49 0 active sync /dev/sdd1
1 8 33 1 active sync /dev/sdc1
3 8 1 2 active sync /dev/sda1
4 8 17 3 active sync /dev/sdb1
5 8 80 4 active sync /dev/sdf
6 8 113 - spare /dev/sdh1
And the disk structure is this
NAME MAJ:MIN RM SIZE RO TYPE MOUNTPOINT
sda 8:0 0 3,7T 0 disk
└─sda1 8:1 0 3,7T 0 part
└─md0 9:0 0 14,6T 0 raid5
└─storageRaid 253:4 0 14,6T 0 crypt
└─vg_raid-raidVolume 253:5 0 14,6T 0 lvm /media/raidVolume
sdb 8:16 0 3,7T 0 disk
└─sdb1 8:17 0 3,7T 0 part
└─md0 9:0 0 14,6T 0 raid5
└─storageRaid 253:4 0 14,6T 0 crypt
└─vg_raid-raidVolume 253:5 0 14,6T 0 lvm /media/raidVolume
sdc 8:32 0 3,7T 0 disk
└─sdc1 8:33 0 3,7T 0 part
└─md0 9:0 0 14,6T 0 raid5
└─storageRaid 253:4 0 14,6T 0 crypt
└─vg_raid-raidVolume 253:5 0 14,6T 0 lvm /media/raidVolume
sdd 8:48 0 3,7T 0 disk
└─sdd1 8:49 0 3,7T 0 part
└─md0 9:0 0 14,6T 0 raid5
└─storageRaid 253:4 0 14,6T 0 crypt
└─vg_raid-raidVolume 253:5 0 14,6T 0 lvm /media/raidVolume
sdf 8:80 1 3,7T 0 disk
└─md0 9:0 0 14,6T 0 raid5
└─storageRaid 253:4 0 14,6T 0 crypt
└─vg_raid-raidVolume 253:5 0 14,6T 0 lvm /media/raidVolume
sdh 8:112 1 3,7T 0 disk
└─sdh1 8:113 1 3,7T 0 part
└─md0 9:0 0 14,6T 0 raid5
└─storageRaid 253:4 0 14,6T 0 crypt
└─vg_raid-raidVolume 253:5 0 14,6T 0 lvm /media/raidVolume
I'm a bit confused that the spare disk (sdh) is already in the crypt volume.
Questions:
Under what criteria will mdadm say that a disk has Failed?
Can the random read errors come from one broken Disk?
Dosn't detect the raid it when a disk sends the wrong data?
Is it dangerouse to mark a disk manually as failed when the spare Disk has not the exact same size?
lvm mdadm raid5 smart
New contributor
add a comment |
First the long story:
I have a RAID5 with mdadm on Debian 9. The Raid has 5 Disks, each 4TB of size. 4 of them are HGST Deskstar NAS, and one that came later is a Toshiba N300 NAS.
In the past days I noticed some read errors from that Raid. For example I had a 10GB rar archive in multiple parts. When I try to extract I get CRC errors on some of the parts. If I try it a second time, I get theses errors on other parts. That also happens with Torrents and a re-chack after download.
After a reboot my BIOS noticed me that the S.M.A.R.T status of a HGST drive on SATA Port 3 is bad. smartctl had sayed to me that there are DMA CRC errors, but claims that the Drive is OK.
Another reboot later, I can't see the crc errors in the smart anymore. But now I get this output
smartctl 6.6 2016-05-31 r4324 [x86_64-linux-4.9.0-4-amd64] (local build)
Copyright (C) 2002-16, Bruce Allen, Christian Franke, www.smartmontools.org
=== START OF READ SMART DATA SECTION ===
SMART overall-health self-assessment test result: FAILED!
Drive failure expected in less than 24 hours. SAVE ALL DATA.
Failed Attributes:
ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAG VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE UPDATED WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE
5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct 0x0033 001 001 005 Pre-fail Always FAILING_NOW 1989
As the HGST aren't aviable for normale prices anymore, I bought another Toshiba N300 to replace the HGST. Both are labeled as 4TB. I tryed to make a Partition of the exact same size but it didn't worked. The partition programm claimed that my number is too big (I tried it with bytes and sectors). So I just made the Partition as big as posible. But now it looks like it is the same size, I'm a bit confused.
sdc is the old, and sdh is the new one
Disk /dev/sdc: 3,7 TiB, 4000787030016 bytes, 7814037168 sectors
Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 4096 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 4096 bytes
Disklabel type: gpt
Disk identifier: 4CAD956D-E627-42D4-B6BB-53F48DF8AABC
Device Start End Sectors Size Type
/dev/sdc1 2048 7814028976 7814026929 3,7T Linux RAID
Disk /dev/sdh: 3,7 TiB, 4000787030016 bytes, 7814037168 sectors
Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
Disklabel type: gpt
Disk identifier: 3A173902-47DE-4C96-8360-BE5DBED1EAD3
Device Start End Sectors Size Type
/dev/sdh1 2048 7814037134 7814035087 3,7T Linux filesystem
Currently I have added the new one as a spare disk. The RAID is still working with the old Drive. I still have some read errors, especially on big files.
This is how my RAID Currently looks:
/dev/md/0:
Version : 1.2
Creation Time : Sun Dec 17 22:03:20 2017
Raid Level : raid5
Array Size : 15627528192 (14903.57 GiB 16002.59 GB)
Used Dev Size : 3906882048 (3725.89 GiB 4000.65 GB)
Raid Devices : 5
Total Devices : 6
Persistence : Superblock is persistent
Intent Bitmap : Internal
Update Time : Sat Jan 5 09:48:49 2019
State : clean
Active Devices : 5
Working Devices : 6
Failed Devices : 0
Spare Devices : 1
Layout : left-symmetric
Chunk Size : 512K
Name : SERVER:0 (local to host SERVER)
UUID : 16ee60d0:f055dedf:7bd40adc:f3415deb
Events : 25839
Number Major Minor RaidDevice State
0 8 49 0 active sync /dev/sdd1
1 8 33 1 active sync /dev/sdc1
3 8 1 2 active sync /dev/sda1
4 8 17 3 active sync /dev/sdb1
5 8 80 4 active sync /dev/sdf
6 8 113 - spare /dev/sdh1
And the disk structure is this
NAME MAJ:MIN RM SIZE RO TYPE MOUNTPOINT
sda 8:0 0 3,7T 0 disk
└─sda1 8:1 0 3,7T 0 part
└─md0 9:0 0 14,6T 0 raid5
└─storageRaid 253:4 0 14,6T 0 crypt
└─vg_raid-raidVolume 253:5 0 14,6T 0 lvm /media/raidVolume
sdb 8:16 0 3,7T 0 disk
└─sdb1 8:17 0 3,7T 0 part
└─md0 9:0 0 14,6T 0 raid5
└─storageRaid 253:4 0 14,6T 0 crypt
└─vg_raid-raidVolume 253:5 0 14,6T 0 lvm /media/raidVolume
sdc 8:32 0 3,7T 0 disk
└─sdc1 8:33 0 3,7T 0 part
└─md0 9:0 0 14,6T 0 raid5
└─storageRaid 253:4 0 14,6T 0 crypt
└─vg_raid-raidVolume 253:5 0 14,6T 0 lvm /media/raidVolume
sdd 8:48 0 3,7T 0 disk
└─sdd1 8:49 0 3,7T 0 part
└─md0 9:0 0 14,6T 0 raid5
└─storageRaid 253:4 0 14,6T 0 crypt
└─vg_raid-raidVolume 253:5 0 14,6T 0 lvm /media/raidVolume
sdf 8:80 1 3,7T 0 disk
└─md0 9:0 0 14,6T 0 raid5
└─storageRaid 253:4 0 14,6T 0 crypt
└─vg_raid-raidVolume 253:5 0 14,6T 0 lvm /media/raidVolume
sdh 8:112 1 3,7T 0 disk
└─sdh1 8:113 1 3,7T 0 part
└─md0 9:0 0 14,6T 0 raid5
└─storageRaid 253:4 0 14,6T 0 crypt
└─vg_raid-raidVolume 253:5 0 14,6T 0 lvm /media/raidVolume
I'm a bit confused that the spare disk (sdh) is already in the crypt volume.
Questions:
Under what criteria will mdadm say that a disk has Failed?
Can the random read errors come from one broken Disk?
Dosn't detect the raid it when a disk sends the wrong data?
Is it dangerouse to mark a disk manually as failed when the spare Disk has not the exact same size?
lvm mdadm raid5 smart
New contributor
except of being "too broad" it's also an off-topic ("consumer workstations or networking (which belong on our sister site, Super User)") — serverfault.com/help/on-topic
– poige
2 days ago
add a comment |
First the long story:
I have a RAID5 with mdadm on Debian 9. The Raid has 5 Disks, each 4TB of size. 4 of them are HGST Deskstar NAS, and one that came later is a Toshiba N300 NAS.
In the past days I noticed some read errors from that Raid. For example I had a 10GB rar archive in multiple parts. When I try to extract I get CRC errors on some of the parts. If I try it a second time, I get theses errors on other parts. That also happens with Torrents and a re-chack after download.
After a reboot my BIOS noticed me that the S.M.A.R.T status of a HGST drive on SATA Port 3 is bad. smartctl had sayed to me that there are DMA CRC errors, but claims that the Drive is OK.
Another reboot later, I can't see the crc errors in the smart anymore. But now I get this output
smartctl 6.6 2016-05-31 r4324 [x86_64-linux-4.9.0-4-amd64] (local build)
Copyright (C) 2002-16, Bruce Allen, Christian Franke, www.smartmontools.org
=== START OF READ SMART DATA SECTION ===
SMART overall-health self-assessment test result: FAILED!
Drive failure expected in less than 24 hours. SAVE ALL DATA.
Failed Attributes:
ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAG VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE UPDATED WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE
5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct 0x0033 001 001 005 Pre-fail Always FAILING_NOW 1989
As the HGST aren't aviable for normale prices anymore, I bought another Toshiba N300 to replace the HGST. Both are labeled as 4TB. I tryed to make a Partition of the exact same size but it didn't worked. The partition programm claimed that my number is too big (I tried it with bytes and sectors). So I just made the Partition as big as posible. But now it looks like it is the same size, I'm a bit confused.
sdc is the old, and sdh is the new one
Disk /dev/sdc: 3,7 TiB, 4000787030016 bytes, 7814037168 sectors
Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 4096 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 4096 bytes
Disklabel type: gpt
Disk identifier: 4CAD956D-E627-42D4-B6BB-53F48DF8AABC
Device Start End Sectors Size Type
/dev/sdc1 2048 7814028976 7814026929 3,7T Linux RAID
Disk /dev/sdh: 3,7 TiB, 4000787030016 bytes, 7814037168 sectors
Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
Disklabel type: gpt
Disk identifier: 3A173902-47DE-4C96-8360-BE5DBED1EAD3
Device Start End Sectors Size Type
/dev/sdh1 2048 7814037134 7814035087 3,7T Linux filesystem
Currently I have added the new one as a spare disk. The RAID is still working with the old Drive. I still have some read errors, especially on big files.
This is how my RAID Currently looks:
/dev/md/0:
Version : 1.2
Creation Time : Sun Dec 17 22:03:20 2017
Raid Level : raid5
Array Size : 15627528192 (14903.57 GiB 16002.59 GB)
Used Dev Size : 3906882048 (3725.89 GiB 4000.65 GB)
Raid Devices : 5
Total Devices : 6
Persistence : Superblock is persistent
Intent Bitmap : Internal
Update Time : Sat Jan 5 09:48:49 2019
State : clean
Active Devices : 5
Working Devices : 6
Failed Devices : 0
Spare Devices : 1
Layout : left-symmetric
Chunk Size : 512K
Name : SERVER:0 (local to host SERVER)
UUID : 16ee60d0:f055dedf:7bd40adc:f3415deb
Events : 25839
Number Major Minor RaidDevice State
0 8 49 0 active sync /dev/sdd1
1 8 33 1 active sync /dev/sdc1
3 8 1 2 active sync /dev/sda1
4 8 17 3 active sync /dev/sdb1
5 8 80 4 active sync /dev/sdf
6 8 113 - spare /dev/sdh1
And the disk structure is this
NAME MAJ:MIN RM SIZE RO TYPE MOUNTPOINT
sda 8:0 0 3,7T 0 disk
└─sda1 8:1 0 3,7T 0 part
└─md0 9:0 0 14,6T 0 raid5
└─storageRaid 253:4 0 14,6T 0 crypt
└─vg_raid-raidVolume 253:5 0 14,6T 0 lvm /media/raidVolume
sdb 8:16 0 3,7T 0 disk
└─sdb1 8:17 0 3,7T 0 part
└─md0 9:0 0 14,6T 0 raid5
└─storageRaid 253:4 0 14,6T 0 crypt
└─vg_raid-raidVolume 253:5 0 14,6T 0 lvm /media/raidVolume
sdc 8:32 0 3,7T 0 disk
└─sdc1 8:33 0 3,7T 0 part
└─md0 9:0 0 14,6T 0 raid5
└─storageRaid 253:4 0 14,6T 0 crypt
└─vg_raid-raidVolume 253:5 0 14,6T 0 lvm /media/raidVolume
sdd 8:48 0 3,7T 0 disk
└─sdd1 8:49 0 3,7T 0 part
└─md0 9:0 0 14,6T 0 raid5
└─storageRaid 253:4 0 14,6T 0 crypt
└─vg_raid-raidVolume 253:5 0 14,6T 0 lvm /media/raidVolume
sdf 8:80 1 3,7T 0 disk
└─md0 9:0 0 14,6T 0 raid5
└─storageRaid 253:4 0 14,6T 0 crypt
└─vg_raid-raidVolume 253:5 0 14,6T 0 lvm /media/raidVolume
sdh 8:112 1 3,7T 0 disk
└─sdh1 8:113 1 3,7T 0 part
└─md0 9:0 0 14,6T 0 raid5
└─storageRaid 253:4 0 14,6T 0 crypt
└─vg_raid-raidVolume 253:5 0 14,6T 0 lvm /media/raidVolume
I'm a bit confused that the spare disk (sdh) is already in the crypt volume.
Questions:
Under what criteria will mdadm say that a disk has Failed?
Can the random read errors come from one broken Disk?
Dosn't detect the raid it when a disk sends the wrong data?
Is it dangerouse to mark a disk manually as failed when the spare Disk has not the exact same size?
lvm mdadm raid5 smart
New contributor
First the long story:
I have a RAID5 with mdadm on Debian 9. The Raid has 5 Disks, each 4TB of size. 4 of them are HGST Deskstar NAS, and one that came later is a Toshiba N300 NAS.
In the past days I noticed some read errors from that Raid. For example I had a 10GB rar archive in multiple parts. When I try to extract I get CRC errors on some of the parts. If I try it a second time, I get theses errors on other parts. That also happens with Torrents and a re-chack after download.
After a reboot my BIOS noticed me that the S.M.A.R.T status of a HGST drive on SATA Port 3 is bad. smartctl had sayed to me that there are DMA CRC errors, but claims that the Drive is OK.
Another reboot later, I can't see the crc errors in the smart anymore. But now I get this output
smartctl 6.6 2016-05-31 r4324 [x86_64-linux-4.9.0-4-amd64] (local build)
Copyright (C) 2002-16, Bruce Allen, Christian Franke, www.smartmontools.org
=== START OF READ SMART DATA SECTION ===
SMART overall-health self-assessment test result: FAILED!
Drive failure expected in less than 24 hours. SAVE ALL DATA.
Failed Attributes:
ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAG VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE UPDATED WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE
5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct 0x0033 001 001 005 Pre-fail Always FAILING_NOW 1989
As the HGST aren't aviable for normale prices anymore, I bought another Toshiba N300 to replace the HGST. Both are labeled as 4TB. I tryed to make a Partition of the exact same size but it didn't worked. The partition programm claimed that my number is too big (I tried it with bytes and sectors). So I just made the Partition as big as posible. But now it looks like it is the same size, I'm a bit confused.
sdc is the old, and sdh is the new one
Disk /dev/sdc: 3,7 TiB, 4000787030016 bytes, 7814037168 sectors
Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 4096 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 4096 bytes
Disklabel type: gpt
Disk identifier: 4CAD956D-E627-42D4-B6BB-53F48DF8AABC
Device Start End Sectors Size Type
/dev/sdc1 2048 7814028976 7814026929 3,7T Linux RAID
Disk /dev/sdh: 3,7 TiB, 4000787030016 bytes, 7814037168 sectors
Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
Disklabel type: gpt
Disk identifier: 3A173902-47DE-4C96-8360-BE5DBED1EAD3
Device Start End Sectors Size Type
/dev/sdh1 2048 7814037134 7814035087 3,7T Linux filesystem
Currently I have added the new one as a spare disk. The RAID is still working with the old Drive. I still have some read errors, especially on big files.
This is how my RAID Currently looks:
/dev/md/0:
Version : 1.2
Creation Time : Sun Dec 17 22:03:20 2017
Raid Level : raid5
Array Size : 15627528192 (14903.57 GiB 16002.59 GB)
Used Dev Size : 3906882048 (3725.89 GiB 4000.65 GB)
Raid Devices : 5
Total Devices : 6
Persistence : Superblock is persistent
Intent Bitmap : Internal
Update Time : Sat Jan 5 09:48:49 2019
State : clean
Active Devices : 5
Working Devices : 6
Failed Devices : 0
Spare Devices : 1
Layout : left-symmetric
Chunk Size : 512K
Name : SERVER:0 (local to host SERVER)
UUID : 16ee60d0:f055dedf:7bd40adc:f3415deb
Events : 25839
Number Major Minor RaidDevice State
0 8 49 0 active sync /dev/sdd1
1 8 33 1 active sync /dev/sdc1
3 8 1 2 active sync /dev/sda1
4 8 17 3 active sync /dev/sdb1
5 8 80 4 active sync /dev/sdf
6 8 113 - spare /dev/sdh1
And the disk structure is this
NAME MAJ:MIN RM SIZE RO TYPE MOUNTPOINT
sda 8:0 0 3,7T 0 disk
└─sda1 8:1 0 3,7T 0 part
└─md0 9:0 0 14,6T 0 raid5
└─storageRaid 253:4 0 14,6T 0 crypt
└─vg_raid-raidVolume 253:5 0 14,6T 0 lvm /media/raidVolume
sdb 8:16 0 3,7T 0 disk
└─sdb1 8:17 0 3,7T 0 part
└─md0 9:0 0 14,6T 0 raid5
└─storageRaid 253:4 0 14,6T 0 crypt
└─vg_raid-raidVolume 253:5 0 14,6T 0 lvm /media/raidVolume
sdc 8:32 0 3,7T 0 disk
└─sdc1 8:33 0 3,7T 0 part
└─md0 9:0 0 14,6T 0 raid5
└─storageRaid 253:4 0 14,6T 0 crypt
└─vg_raid-raidVolume 253:5 0 14,6T 0 lvm /media/raidVolume
sdd 8:48 0 3,7T 0 disk
└─sdd1 8:49 0 3,7T 0 part
└─md0 9:0 0 14,6T 0 raid5
└─storageRaid 253:4 0 14,6T 0 crypt
└─vg_raid-raidVolume 253:5 0 14,6T 0 lvm /media/raidVolume
sdf 8:80 1 3,7T 0 disk
└─md0 9:0 0 14,6T 0 raid5
└─storageRaid 253:4 0 14,6T 0 crypt
└─vg_raid-raidVolume 253:5 0 14,6T 0 lvm /media/raidVolume
sdh 8:112 1 3,7T 0 disk
└─sdh1 8:113 1 3,7T 0 part
└─md0 9:0 0 14,6T 0 raid5
└─storageRaid 253:4 0 14,6T 0 crypt
└─vg_raid-raidVolume 253:5 0 14,6T 0 lvm /media/raidVolume
I'm a bit confused that the spare disk (sdh) is already in the crypt volume.
Questions:
Under what criteria will mdadm say that a disk has Failed?
Can the random read errors come from one broken Disk?
Dosn't detect the raid it when a disk sends the wrong data?
Is it dangerouse to mark a disk manually as failed when the spare Disk has not the exact same size?
lvm mdadm raid5 smart
lvm mdadm raid5 smart
New contributor
New contributor
New contributor
asked 2 days ago
kevinqkevinq
211
211
New contributor
New contributor
except of being "too broad" it's also an off-topic ("consumer workstations or networking (which belong on our sister site, Super User)") — serverfault.com/help/on-topic
– poige
2 days ago
add a comment |
except of being "too broad" it's also an off-topic ("consumer workstations or networking (which belong on our sister site, Super User)") — serverfault.com/help/on-topic
– poige
2 days ago
except of being "too broad" it's also an off-topic ("consumer workstations or networking (which belong on our sister site, Super User)") — serverfault.com/help/on-topic
– poige
2 days ago
except of being "too broad" it's also an off-topic ("consumer workstations or networking (which belong on our sister site, Super User)") — serverfault.com/help/on-topic
– poige
2 days ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
it’s pretty common to have cron task initiating parity mismatch checks. i’m pretty sure debian 9 does it by default when mdadm package installs and hence your system’s logs would have reports in regards.
Besides if your system’s RAM fails it might be the primary reason
To test the system RAM, the OP can run memtest86.
– Halfgaar
2 days ago
whatever, that's another story
– poige
2 days ago
add a comment |
MD raid is far too conservative with kicking out disks, in my opinion. I always watch for ATA exceptions in the syslog/dmesg (I set rsyslog to notify me on those).
I must say I am surprised that you get errors on the application level. RAID5 should use the parity information to detect errors (edit, apparently, it doesn't; only during verification). Having said that, whether the disk is the cause or not, it's bad. Nearly 2000 reallocated sectors is really bad.
Partitions can be bigger, otherwise you can't add them as spare either, but to be sure everything is fine, you can clone partition tables using fdisk, sfdisk and gdisk. You have GPT, so let's use its backup feature. If you do gdisk /dev/sdX
, you can use b
to back the partition table up to disk. Then, on the new disk, gdisk /dev/sdY
, you can use r
for recovery options, then l
to load the backup. Then you should have an identical partition and all mdadm --manage --add
commands should work. (you will need to take out the new disk from the array before changing the partition table)
I actually tend to keep those backup partition tables around on servers. It makes for fast disk replacements.
And, a final piece of advice: don't use RAID5. RAID5 with such huge disks is flaky. You should be able to add a disk and dynamically migrate to RAID6. Not sure how from the top of my head, but you can Google that.
I already added the new disk (sdh1) with mdadm --manage --add and it is there as as spare disk now. Can i Just mark the old device as failed? Or should I remove the spare again, and vreate a Partition with a gdisk backup? I read somewhere that I need to set a new uuid if I install the parition backup.
– kevinq
2 days ago
1
“RAID5 should use the parity information to detect errors. ” — what do you mean “should”? Linux software RAID doesn’t work that way
– poige
2 days ago
@kevinq, if will work if you mark the old device as failed. You will just have to remember that in the future, new disks only need to have partitions has big as the smallest drive. As for the UUID, I think you're right. If you have a new enoughsfdisk
(with gpt support), you can see the UUIDs withsfdisk -d /dev/sdX
. I used to clone MBR partition tables withsfdisk -d /dev/sda | sfdisk /dev/sdb
, but with UUIDs, I need to rethink this.
– Halfgaar
2 days ago
@poige can you elaborate? You're saying (Linux software) RAID5 doesn't use the parity to verify what it just read? If not, I stand corrected, and what the OP sees is not unexpected, though the drive should have given an error instead of return wrong data.
– Halfgaar
2 days ago
I'm saying what I'm saying, the q-n is why are you telling before prior checking(?)
– poige
2 days ago
|
show 1 more comment
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "2"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
kevinq is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fserverfault.com%2fquestions%2f947708%2fmdadm-raid5-random-read-errors-dying-disk%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
it’s pretty common to have cron task initiating parity mismatch checks. i’m pretty sure debian 9 does it by default when mdadm package installs and hence your system’s logs would have reports in regards.
Besides if your system’s RAM fails it might be the primary reason
To test the system RAM, the OP can run memtest86.
– Halfgaar
2 days ago
whatever, that's another story
– poige
2 days ago
add a comment |
it’s pretty common to have cron task initiating parity mismatch checks. i’m pretty sure debian 9 does it by default when mdadm package installs and hence your system’s logs would have reports in regards.
Besides if your system’s RAM fails it might be the primary reason
To test the system RAM, the OP can run memtest86.
– Halfgaar
2 days ago
whatever, that's another story
– poige
2 days ago
add a comment |
it’s pretty common to have cron task initiating parity mismatch checks. i’m pretty sure debian 9 does it by default when mdadm package installs and hence your system’s logs would have reports in regards.
Besides if your system’s RAM fails it might be the primary reason
it’s pretty common to have cron task initiating parity mismatch checks. i’m pretty sure debian 9 does it by default when mdadm package installs and hence your system’s logs would have reports in regards.
Besides if your system’s RAM fails it might be the primary reason
answered 2 days ago
poigepoige
6,62011337
6,62011337
To test the system RAM, the OP can run memtest86.
– Halfgaar
2 days ago
whatever, that's another story
– poige
2 days ago
add a comment |
To test the system RAM, the OP can run memtest86.
– Halfgaar
2 days ago
whatever, that's another story
– poige
2 days ago
To test the system RAM, the OP can run memtest86.
– Halfgaar
2 days ago
To test the system RAM, the OP can run memtest86.
– Halfgaar
2 days ago
whatever, that's another story
– poige
2 days ago
whatever, that's another story
– poige
2 days ago
add a comment |
MD raid is far too conservative with kicking out disks, in my opinion. I always watch for ATA exceptions in the syslog/dmesg (I set rsyslog to notify me on those).
I must say I am surprised that you get errors on the application level. RAID5 should use the parity information to detect errors (edit, apparently, it doesn't; only during verification). Having said that, whether the disk is the cause or not, it's bad. Nearly 2000 reallocated sectors is really bad.
Partitions can be bigger, otherwise you can't add them as spare either, but to be sure everything is fine, you can clone partition tables using fdisk, sfdisk and gdisk. You have GPT, so let's use its backup feature. If you do gdisk /dev/sdX
, you can use b
to back the partition table up to disk. Then, on the new disk, gdisk /dev/sdY
, you can use r
for recovery options, then l
to load the backup. Then you should have an identical partition and all mdadm --manage --add
commands should work. (you will need to take out the new disk from the array before changing the partition table)
I actually tend to keep those backup partition tables around on servers. It makes for fast disk replacements.
And, a final piece of advice: don't use RAID5. RAID5 with such huge disks is flaky. You should be able to add a disk and dynamically migrate to RAID6. Not sure how from the top of my head, but you can Google that.
I already added the new disk (sdh1) with mdadm --manage --add and it is there as as spare disk now. Can i Just mark the old device as failed? Or should I remove the spare again, and vreate a Partition with a gdisk backup? I read somewhere that I need to set a new uuid if I install the parition backup.
– kevinq
2 days ago
1
“RAID5 should use the parity information to detect errors. ” — what do you mean “should”? Linux software RAID doesn’t work that way
– poige
2 days ago
@kevinq, if will work if you mark the old device as failed. You will just have to remember that in the future, new disks only need to have partitions has big as the smallest drive. As for the UUID, I think you're right. If you have a new enoughsfdisk
(with gpt support), you can see the UUIDs withsfdisk -d /dev/sdX
. I used to clone MBR partition tables withsfdisk -d /dev/sda | sfdisk /dev/sdb
, but with UUIDs, I need to rethink this.
– Halfgaar
2 days ago
@poige can you elaborate? You're saying (Linux software) RAID5 doesn't use the parity to verify what it just read? If not, I stand corrected, and what the OP sees is not unexpected, though the drive should have given an error instead of return wrong data.
– Halfgaar
2 days ago
I'm saying what I'm saying, the q-n is why are you telling before prior checking(?)
– poige
2 days ago
|
show 1 more comment
MD raid is far too conservative with kicking out disks, in my opinion. I always watch for ATA exceptions in the syslog/dmesg (I set rsyslog to notify me on those).
I must say I am surprised that you get errors on the application level. RAID5 should use the parity information to detect errors (edit, apparently, it doesn't; only during verification). Having said that, whether the disk is the cause or not, it's bad. Nearly 2000 reallocated sectors is really bad.
Partitions can be bigger, otherwise you can't add them as spare either, but to be sure everything is fine, you can clone partition tables using fdisk, sfdisk and gdisk. You have GPT, so let's use its backup feature. If you do gdisk /dev/sdX
, you can use b
to back the partition table up to disk. Then, on the new disk, gdisk /dev/sdY
, you can use r
for recovery options, then l
to load the backup. Then you should have an identical partition and all mdadm --manage --add
commands should work. (you will need to take out the new disk from the array before changing the partition table)
I actually tend to keep those backup partition tables around on servers. It makes for fast disk replacements.
And, a final piece of advice: don't use RAID5. RAID5 with such huge disks is flaky. You should be able to add a disk and dynamically migrate to RAID6. Not sure how from the top of my head, but you can Google that.
I already added the new disk (sdh1) with mdadm --manage --add and it is there as as spare disk now. Can i Just mark the old device as failed? Or should I remove the spare again, and vreate a Partition with a gdisk backup? I read somewhere that I need to set a new uuid if I install the parition backup.
– kevinq
2 days ago
1
“RAID5 should use the parity information to detect errors. ” — what do you mean “should”? Linux software RAID doesn’t work that way
– poige
2 days ago
@kevinq, if will work if you mark the old device as failed. You will just have to remember that in the future, new disks only need to have partitions has big as the smallest drive. As for the UUID, I think you're right. If you have a new enoughsfdisk
(with gpt support), you can see the UUIDs withsfdisk -d /dev/sdX
. I used to clone MBR partition tables withsfdisk -d /dev/sda | sfdisk /dev/sdb
, but with UUIDs, I need to rethink this.
– Halfgaar
2 days ago
@poige can you elaborate? You're saying (Linux software) RAID5 doesn't use the parity to verify what it just read? If not, I stand corrected, and what the OP sees is not unexpected, though the drive should have given an error instead of return wrong data.
– Halfgaar
2 days ago
I'm saying what I'm saying, the q-n is why are you telling before prior checking(?)
– poige
2 days ago
|
show 1 more comment
MD raid is far too conservative with kicking out disks, in my opinion. I always watch for ATA exceptions in the syslog/dmesg (I set rsyslog to notify me on those).
I must say I am surprised that you get errors on the application level. RAID5 should use the parity information to detect errors (edit, apparently, it doesn't; only during verification). Having said that, whether the disk is the cause or not, it's bad. Nearly 2000 reallocated sectors is really bad.
Partitions can be bigger, otherwise you can't add them as spare either, but to be sure everything is fine, you can clone partition tables using fdisk, sfdisk and gdisk. You have GPT, so let's use its backup feature. If you do gdisk /dev/sdX
, you can use b
to back the partition table up to disk. Then, on the new disk, gdisk /dev/sdY
, you can use r
for recovery options, then l
to load the backup. Then you should have an identical partition and all mdadm --manage --add
commands should work. (you will need to take out the new disk from the array before changing the partition table)
I actually tend to keep those backup partition tables around on servers. It makes for fast disk replacements.
And, a final piece of advice: don't use RAID5. RAID5 with such huge disks is flaky. You should be able to add a disk and dynamically migrate to RAID6. Not sure how from the top of my head, but you can Google that.
MD raid is far too conservative with kicking out disks, in my opinion. I always watch for ATA exceptions in the syslog/dmesg (I set rsyslog to notify me on those).
I must say I am surprised that you get errors on the application level. RAID5 should use the parity information to detect errors (edit, apparently, it doesn't; only during verification). Having said that, whether the disk is the cause or not, it's bad. Nearly 2000 reallocated sectors is really bad.
Partitions can be bigger, otherwise you can't add them as spare either, but to be sure everything is fine, you can clone partition tables using fdisk, sfdisk and gdisk. You have GPT, so let's use its backup feature. If you do gdisk /dev/sdX
, you can use b
to back the partition table up to disk. Then, on the new disk, gdisk /dev/sdY
, you can use r
for recovery options, then l
to load the backup. Then you should have an identical partition and all mdadm --manage --add
commands should work. (you will need to take out the new disk from the array before changing the partition table)
I actually tend to keep those backup partition tables around on servers. It makes for fast disk replacements.
And, a final piece of advice: don't use RAID5. RAID5 with such huge disks is flaky. You should be able to add a disk and dynamically migrate to RAID6. Not sure how from the top of my head, but you can Google that.
edited 2 days ago
answered 2 days ago
HalfgaarHalfgaar
5,20742961
5,20742961
I already added the new disk (sdh1) with mdadm --manage --add and it is there as as spare disk now. Can i Just mark the old device as failed? Or should I remove the spare again, and vreate a Partition with a gdisk backup? I read somewhere that I need to set a new uuid if I install the parition backup.
– kevinq
2 days ago
1
“RAID5 should use the parity information to detect errors. ” — what do you mean “should”? Linux software RAID doesn’t work that way
– poige
2 days ago
@kevinq, if will work if you mark the old device as failed. You will just have to remember that in the future, new disks only need to have partitions has big as the smallest drive. As for the UUID, I think you're right. If you have a new enoughsfdisk
(with gpt support), you can see the UUIDs withsfdisk -d /dev/sdX
. I used to clone MBR partition tables withsfdisk -d /dev/sda | sfdisk /dev/sdb
, but with UUIDs, I need to rethink this.
– Halfgaar
2 days ago
@poige can you elaborate? You're saying (Linux software) RAID5 doesn't use the parity to verify what it just read? If not, I stand corrected, and what the OP sees is not unexpected, though the drive should have given an error instead of return wrong data.
– Halfgaar
2 days ago
I'm saying what I'm saying, the q-n is why are you telling before prior checking(?)
– poige
2 days ago
|
show 1 more comment
I already added the new disk (sdh1) with mdadm --manage --add and it is there as as spare disk now. Can i Just mark the old device as failed? Or should I remove the spare again, and vreate a Partition with a gdisk backup? I read somewhere that I need to set a new uuid if I install the parition backup.
– kevinq
2 days ago
1
“RAID5 should use the parity information to detect errors. ” — what do you mean “should”? Linux software RAID doesn’t work that way
– poige
2 days ago
@kevinq, if will work if you mark the old device as failed. You will just have to remember that in the future, new disks only need to have partitions has big as the smallest drive. As for the UUID, I think you're right. If you have a new enoughsfdisk
(with gpt support), you can see the UUIDs withsfdisk -d /dev/sdX
. I used to clone MBR partition tables withsfdisk -d /dev/sda | sfdisk /dev/sdb
, but with UUIDs, I need to rethink this.
– Halfgaar
2 days ago
@poige can you elaborate? You're saying (Linux software) RAID5 doesn't use the parity to verify what it just read? If not, I stand corrected, and what the OP sees is not unexpected, though the drive should have given an error instead of return wrong data.
– Halfgaar
2 days ago
I'm saying what I'm saying, the q-n is why are you telling before prior checking(?)
– poige
2 days ago
I already added the new disk (sdh1) with mdadm --manage --add and it is there as as spare disk now. Can i Just mark the old device as failed? Or should I remove the spare again, and vreate a Partition with a gdisk backup? I read somewhere that I need to set a new uuid if I install the parition backup.
– kevinq
2 days ago
I already added the new disk (sdh1) with mdadm --manage --add and it is there as as spare disk now. Can i Just mark the old device as failed? Or should I remove the spare again, and vreate a Partition with a gdisk backup? I read somewhere that I need to set a new uuid if I install the parition backup.
– kevinq
2 days ago
1
1
“RAID5 should use the parity information to detect errors. ” — what do you mean “should”? Linux software RAID doesn’t work that way
– poige
2 days ago
“RAID5 should use the parity information to detect errors. ” — what do you mean “should”? Linux software RAID doesn’t work that way
– poige
2 days ago
@kevinq, if will work if you mark the old device as failed. You will just have to remember that in the future, new disks only need to have partitions has big as the smallest drive. As for the UUID, I think you're right. If you have a new enough
sfdisk
(with gpt support), you can see the UUIDs with sfdisk -d /dev/sdX
. I used to clone MBR partition tables with sfdisk -d /dev/sda | sfdisk /dev/sdb
, but with UUIDs, I need to rethink this.– Halfgaar
2 days ago
@kevinq, if will work if you mark the old device as failed. You will just have to remember that in the future, new disks only need to have partitions has big as the smallest drive. As for the UUID, I think you're right. If you have a new enough
sfdisk
(with gpt support), you can see the UUIDs with sfdisk -d /dev/sdX
. I used to clone MBR partition tables with sfdisk -d /dev/sda | sfdisk /dev/sdb
, but with UUIDs, I need to rethink this.– Halfgaar
2 days ago
@poige can you elaborate? You're saying (Linux software) RAID5 doesn't use the parity to verify what it just read? If not, I stand corrected, and what the OP sees is not unexpected, though the drive should have given an error instead of return wrong data.
– Halfgaar
2 days ago
@poige can you elaborate? You're saying (Linux software) RAID5 doesn't use the parity to verify what it just read? If not, I stand corrected, and what the OP sees is not unexpected, though the drive should have given an error instead of return wrong data.
– Halfgaar
2 days ago
I'm saying what I'm saying, the q-n is why are you telling before prior checking(?)
– poige
2 days ago
I'm saying what I'm saying, the q-n is why are you telling before prior checking(?)
– poige
2 days ago
|
show 1 more comment
kevinq is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
kevinq is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
kevinq is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
kevinq is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Server Fault!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fserverfault.com%2fquestions%2f947708%2fmdadm-raid5-random-read-errors-dying-disk%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
except of being "too broad" it's also an off-topic ("consumer workstations or networking (which belong on our sister site, Super User)") — serverfault.com/help/on-topic
– poige
2 days ago