Re: Disk /dev/md6 doesn't contain valid partition table
Hi Lennart:
Thanks, also for suggesting Knoppix. I have the CD, I know that it can
be used for repair, when I traveled much in the South Seas,
particularly in New Caledonia, I had a portable HDD with Knowppix and
my data, and on one computer or another, I was able to have Linux
where Linux was unknown, Now I forgot about.
Thanks also to the Anonymous who pointed me that I was imagining
non-existent problems, and of course, to Alex. Next time I setup a
raid1, I'll pay attention to his indications that I missed from the
Debian instructions.
When "top -i" showed
all 8 instances fo the parallel procedure
md6_resync (CPU% 6)
md5_resync (CPU% 0)
kjournald
I was confident that "repair" was occurring, and, in fact, "resync"
disappeared after a while. Everything looked like in order and I
misinterpreted "fdisk -l". Sorry for much rumor for nothing.
francesco
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 5:07 PM, C M Reinehr <cmr@amsent.com> wrote:
> Francesco,
>
> On Wed 29 October 2008 06:16, Francesco Pietra wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 11:40 AM, Alex Samad <alex@samad.com.au> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 08:24:55AM +0100, Francesco Pietra wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 7:06 AM, Douglas A. Tutty <dtutty@vianet.ca>
> wrote:
>> >> > On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 05:44:31AM +0100, Francesco Pietra wrote:
>> >
>> > [snip]
>> >
>> >> "cat /proc/mdstat:
>> >> Personalities : [raid1]
>> >> md6 : active raid1 sda8[0] sdb8[1]
>> >> 102341952 blocks [2/2] [UU]
>> >>
>> >> md5 : active raid1 sda7[0] sdb7[1]
>> >> 1951744 blocks [2/2] [UU]
>> >>
>> >> md4 : active raid1 sda6[0] sdb6[1]
>> >> 2931712 blocks [2/2] [UU]
>> >>
>> >> md3 : active raid1 sda5[0] sdb5[1]
>> >> 14651136 blocks [2/2] [UU]
>> >>
>> >> md1 : active(auto-read-only) raid1 sda2[0] sdb2[1]
>> >> 6835584 blocks [2/2] [UU]
>> >>
>> >> md0 : active raid1 sda1[0] sdb1[1]
>> >> 2931712 blocks [2/2] [UU]
>> >>
>> >> md2 : active raid1 sda3[0] sdb3[1]
>> >> 14651200 blocks [2/2] [UU]
>> >
>> > This is off topic but, just a comment, it might be better instead of
>> > having lots of md's to have a big md raid1 and then sit lvm on top of it
>>
>> I am no system maintainer. I set up a raid1 according to the
>> installation notes on Debian, I believe. At any event, this is the
>> present situation. I must confess that a raid1 becomes dirty on power
>> failure, although I expected that it works on one disk failure (as it
>> happened to me once).
>>
>> Well, what about the following recipe that I found on internet? Could
>> that be applied in my case as described? Thenks, francesco:
>>
>> 1. shutdown all processes and databases using the array. lsof /dev/md0
>> is your friend.
>> 2. Full backup, in addition to the usual nightly ones.
>> 3. Stop the array mdadm -S /dev/md0
>> 4. Added the drive back into the array. In this case,
>> mdadm /dev/md0 --add /dev/sdb1
>> 5. Sit back and watch progress, watch -n 1 cat /proc/mdstat
>> 6. Restart, dmesg says
>> raid1: device sdc1 operational as mirror 1
>> raid1: device sdb1 operational as mirror 0
>> raid1: raid set md0 active with 2 out of 2 mirrors
>> md: ... autorun DONE.
>> ============================================
>>
>> > [snip]
>> >
>> >> Thanks
>> >> francesco
>> >>
>> >> > If so, you can write it back.
>> >> >
>> >> > Doug.
>
> I'm not clear as to exactly what your problem is, but here are some thoughts.
>
> First, Knoppix is your friend. In a case like this, where you are not sure of
> your file system integrity, I would boot from a Knoppix CD and then examine &
> repair each file system as necessary.
>
> WRT the supposedly missing partition tables, I don't think that they are
> missing, as they never were there in the first place. Your partition tables
> for your two actual drives are in place. When I run `fdisk -l` here, I get
> similar results as you. (I have two hard drives with two raid-1 arrays
> defined.) The md devices do not have partition tables.
>
> WRT /opt, there is no entry in /etc/fstab for /opt, so I can only conclude
> that it is not mounted on a seperate file system, but is a part of the root
> file system.
>
> HTH!
>
> cmr
>
> PS I agree with Alex regarding LVM2. I have only two partitions defined on my
> hard drives, one each for two md arrays. The first md device is for my boot
> partition. The second for everything else. The everything else, then, is
> managed by LVM2 with logical volumes for each seperate file system. LVM2 is a
> little intimidating but once up & running is much easier to manage.
>
> --
> Debian 'Etch' - Registered Linux User #241964
> --------
> "More laws, less justice." -- Marcus Tullius Ciceroca, 42 BC
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
>
Reply to: