Jump to content

Unmountable: not mounted


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, JorgeB said:

rebuild disk3 using the new disk.


Ok, what are the steps to do this?

 

Does this copy the emulated disk contents onto the new disk, making that disk 3? 
 

Is there a way to find out which data could have been lost, without mounting the old drive?
 

How will I know without going to the actual overall share and attempting to open the file? Will it show, but just fail to open? Or will it not show at all?

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, gooner_47 said:

Ok, what are the steps to do this?

With the array stopped assign te new disk as disk3, start array to begin rebuilding.

 

3 minutes ago, gooner_47 said:

Does this copy the emulated disk contents onto the new disk, making that disk 3?

Yes.

 

3 minutes ago, gooner_47 said:

Is there a way to find out which data could have been lost, without mounting the old drive?

Only if you have a list of what should be there.

 

3 minutes ago, gooner_47 said:

How will I know without going to the actual overall share and attempting to open the file? Will it show, but just fail to open? Or will it not show at all?

Any missing data will not show in the share, it might be in the lost+found folder with a generic name.

Link to comment

I will educate myself further once I get past this problem. Particularly I would like to try and understand why parity in this case doesn't appear to have helped.  I was under the impression that a parity drive (while absolutely not negating the need for a backup) was able to (effectively) bring a drive back from the dead with no loss of data, but this doesn't seem to be the case?  I would like to know what I could have done differently, if anything, to avoid this situation.

Edited by gooner_47
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, gooner_47 said:

I was under the impression that a parity drive (while absolutely not negating the need for a backup) was able to (effectively) bring a drive back from the dead with no loss of data, but this doesn't seem to be the case?

What parity does is bring a dead drive back in the state it was at when it went dead.   If the drive was already corrupted then you will end up with a corrupted drive.

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, itimpi said:

What parity does is bring a dead drive back in the state it was at when it went dead.   If the drive was already corrupted then you will end up with a corrupted drive.

 

I can see further research is definitely required as I believed differently.  Parity seems less capable than I originally thought.

With reference to my post above - does the parity only become corrupt if it runs after the drives corrupts?

 

i.e. would parity be intact in the following situation:

  • all drives fine (no corruption)
  • run parity and it completes successfully
  • drive x fails
  • STOP parity from running (so it does not know about the corruption)

In that scenario would parity have more success in rebuilding the drive?  If so, is it almost better to only run parity checks on demand (as opposed to an automated schedule), when you know 100% there are no problems with any of your drives?

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, gooner_47 said:

In that scenario would parity have more success in rebuilding the drive?  If so, is it almost better to only run parity checks on demand (as opposed to an automated schedule), when you know 100% there are no problems with any of your drives?

Scheduled checks should still be run, but they should be set to be non-correcting.    That way if you get any errors reported you can look into why and a mis-behaving drive does not corrupt parity.  Correcting checks should only be run manually if you have corrected whatever may have caused errors during the non-correcting check.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, itimpi said:

Scheduled checks should still be run, but they should be set to be non-correcting.    That way if you get any errors reported you can look into why and a mis-behaving drive does not corrupt parity.  Correcting checks should only be run manually if you have corrected whatever may have caused errors during the non-correcting check.

 

Is that this setting?

 

"Write corrections to parity disk"

image.png.288a1ca65743c7f5025fd168fd33a934.png

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...