w5lee Posted December 12, 2022 Share Posted December 12, 2022 Hi I have tried up upgrade to 6.11.5 from 6.9.2. When I do my array will not start and I am missing 2 of my 5 cache drives. They are both 2TB nvme ssd drives in pcie slots via adapters. When I downgrade they show back up. Tried a couple of times same result. tower-diagnostics-20221211-1541.zip Quote Link to comment
JorgeB Posted December 12, 2022 Share Posted December 12, 2022 Post the output of udevadm info -q property -n /dev/nvme0n1 and udevadm info -q property -n /dev/nvme1n1 From both v6.9 and v6.11 Quote Link to comment
w5lee Posted December 12, 2022 Author Share Posted December 12, 2022 Post the output of udevadm info -q property -n /dev/nvme0n1 and udevadm info -q property -n /dev/nvme1n1 From both v6.9 and ... 6.9.2: root@Tower:~# udevadm info -q property -n /dev/nvme0n1 DEVLINKS=/dev/disk/by-id/nvme-Samsung_SSD_970_EVO_Plus_2TB_S59CNM0R402382P DEVNAME=/dev/nvme0n1 DEVPATH=/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:02.0/0000:01:00.0/nvme/nvme0/nvme0n1 DEVTYPE=disk ID_MODEL=Samsung_SSD_970_EVO_Plus_2TB ID_MODEL_ENC=Samsung\x20SSD\x20970\x20EVO\x20Plus\x202TB\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20 ID_PART_TABLE_TYPE=dos ID_REVISION=2B2QEXM7 ID_SERIAL=Samsung_SSD_970_EVO_Plus_2TB_S59CNM0R402382P ID_SERIAL_SHORT=S59CNM0R402382P ID_TYPE=nvme MAJOR=259 MINOR=0 SUBSYSTEM=block USEC_INITIALIZED=21286137 root@Tower:~# udevadm info -q property -n /dev/nvme1n1 DEVLINKS=/dev/disk/by-id/nvme-Samsung_SSD_970_EVO_Plus_2TB_S59CNM0R410089P DEVNAME=/dev/nvme1n1 DEVPATH=/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:03.0/0000:02:00.0/nvme/nvme1/nvme1n1 DEVTYPE=disk ID_MODEL=Samsung_SSD_970_EVO_Plus_2TB ID_MODEL_ENC=Samsung\x20SSD\x20970\x20EVO\x20Plus\x202TB\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20 ID_PART_TABLE_TYPE=dos ID_REVISION=2B2QEXM7 ID_SERIAL=Samsung_SSD_970_EVO_Plus_2TB_S59CNM0R410089P ID_SERIAL_SHORT=S59CNM0R410089P ID_TYPE=nvme MAJOR=259 MINOR=1 SUBSYSTEM=block USEC_INITIALIZED=20525164 6.11.5: root@Tower:~# udevadm info -q property -n /dev/nvme0n1 DEVNAME=/dev/nvme0n1 DEVPATH=/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:02.0/0000:01:00.0/nvme/nvme0/nvme0n1 DEVTYPE=disk DISKSEQ=19 ID_PART_TABLE_TYPE=dos MAJOR=259 MINOR=1 SUBSYSTEM=block USEC_INITIALIZED=54420603 root@Tower:~# udevadm info -q property -n /dev/nvme1n1 DEVNAME=/dev/nvme1n1 DEVPATH=/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:03.0/0000:02:00.0/nvme/nvme1/nvme1n1 DEVTYPE=disk DISKSEQ=18 ID_PART_TABLE_TYPE=dos MAJOR=259 MINOR=0 SUBSYSTEM=block USEC_INITIALIZED=54420424 Quote Link to comment
JorgeB Posted December 12, 2022 Share Posted December 12, 2022 Ahh, this reminds me of another user with the same issue, pretty sure it's this in your go file causing the problem: # Copy and apply udev rules for white label drives cp /boot/config/rules.d/60-persistent-storage.rules /etc/udev/rules.d/ chmod 644 /etc/udev/rules.d/60-persistent-storage.rules udevadm control --reload-rules udevadm trigger --attr-match=subsystem=block If you still need to keep doing this copy the 60-persisten-storage.rules file again from the new release then change that one before copying it back. Quote Link to comment
w5lee Posted December 12, 2022 Author Share Posted December 12, 2022 Think this is a bingo. I had some white label drives I had to do something to get going if I remember correctly. Quote Link to comment
w5lee Posted December 12, 2022 Author Share Posted December 12, 2022 May I ask for a bit more guidance. I have a file cat 60-whitelabel.rules ACTION=="remove", GOTO="whitelabel_end" ENV{UDEV_DISABLE_whitelabel_RULES_FLAG}=="1", GOTO="whitelabel_end" SUBSYSTEM!="block", GOTO="whitelabel_end" KERNEL!="sd*|sr*|cciss*", GOTO="whitelabel_end" # for partitions import parent information ENV{DEVTYPE}=="partition", IMPORT{parent}="ID_*" # SCSI devices KERNEL=="sd*|sr*|cciss*", ENV{DEVTYPE}=="disk", ENV{ID_SERIAL_SHORT}=="00000000", SYMLINK+="disk/by-id/$env{ID_BUS}-$env{ID_MODEL}-$env{ID_WWN}" KERNEL=="sd*|cciss*", ENV{DEVTYPE}=="partition", ENV{ID_SERIAL_SHORT}=="00000000", SYMLINK+="disk/by-id/$env{ID_BUS}-$env{ID_MODEL}-$env{ID_WWN}-part%n" LABEL="whitelabel_end" root@Tower:/boot/config/rules.d# ls 60-persistent-storage.rules 60-whitelabel.rules Can I make things work with these files or do I need to downgrade again to retrieve some info? Quote Link to comment
w5lee Posted December 12, 2022 Author Share Posted December 12, 2022 Here is my go file: root@Tower:/boot/config# cat go #!/bin/bash # Copy and apply udev rules for white label drives cp /boot/config/rules.d/60-persistent-storage.rules /etc/udev/rules.d/ chmod 644 /etc/udev/rules.d/60-persistent-storage.rules udevadm control --reload-rules udevadm trigger --attr-match=subsystem=block # Start the Management Utility /usr/local/sbin/emhttp & Quote Link to comment
Solution JorgeB Posted December 12, 2022 Solution Share Posted December 12, 2022 Sorry, not sure what exactly needs to be modified, but you can ask the OP of this thread, he was the one with the same issue, also because of While Label drives, so you can even ask him for the new modified file, it should also work for you. Quote Link to comment
w5lee Posted December 12, 2022 Author Share Posted December 12, 2022 Looks like the modification is no longer needed. Here is my current go file and all is working: root@Tower:/boot/config# cat go #!/bin/bash # Copy and apply udev rules for white label drives #cp /boot/config/rules.d/60-persistent-storage.rules /etc/udev/rules.d/ #chmod 644 /etc/udev/rules.d/60-persistent-storage.rules #udevadm control --reload-rules #udevadm trigger --attr-match=subsystem=block # Start the Management Utility /usr/local/sbin/emhttp & here is what my rules.d dir looks like: root@Tower:/etc/udev/rules.d# ls 70-persistent-net.rules 99_persistent_unassigned.rules I only have one white label drive left in the system and it is a 14GB one so newer than the other ones I had. So not sure if the new persistent storage rules discover them properly on their own now or the drive is exposing the serial number. Anyway thanks for remembering the thread and helping me out 1 Quote Link to comment
JorgeB Posted December 13, 2022 Share Posted December 13, 2022 11 hours ago, w5lee said: Looks like the modification is no longer needed That's good, so you don't run into issues again with a future update. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.