Re: OT - 2 of 4 drives in a Raid10 array failed - Any chance of recovery?
От | Greg Smith |
---|---|
Тема | Re: OT - 2 of 4 drives in a Raid10 array failed - Any chance of recovery? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | alpine.GSO.2.01.0910210236400.1418@westnet.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: OT - 2 of 4 drives in a Raid10 array failed - Any chance of recovery? (Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: OT - 2 of 4 drives in a Raid10 array failed - Any chance of recovery?
|
Список | pgsql-general |
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009, Scott Marlowe wrote: > Actually, later models of linux have a direct RAID-10 level built in. > I haven't used it. Not sure how it would look in /proc/mdstat either. I think I actively block memory of that because the UI on it is so cryptic and it's been historically much more buggy than the simpler RAID0/RAID1 implementaions. But you're right that it's completely possible Ow used it. Would explain not being able to figure out what's going on too. There's a good example of what the result looks like with failed drives in one of the many bug reports related to that feature at https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/intrepid/+source/linux/+bug/285156 and I liked the discussion of some of the details here at http://robbat2.livejournal.com/231207.html The other hint I forgot to mention is that you should try: mdadm --examine /dev/XXX For each of the drives that still works, to help figure out where they fit into the larger array. That and --detail are what I find myself using instead of /proc/mdstat , which provides an awful interface IMHO. -- * Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: