[SOLVED]Yet ANOTHER...'Replacing Drives' Question

[CDLehner]

^ So trurl...what do you suggest I do, about this unBALANCE error up top?

[trurl]

4 minutes ago, CDLehner said:

^ So trurl...what do you suggest I do, about this unBALANCE error up top?

Exactly what it says in the last line

[CDLehner]

^ So...I started the array (w/o Parity), to get a "full" Fix Common Problems scan. Here are the results (after ignoring the ReiserFS warnings, because we're fixing those anyway)...

 

 

Is there anything to do? Can't really help, my old board and/or "Marvel controller" (perhaps of the case, and/or backplane).

 

Fix Unassigned Devices PLUS? Turn on Background Notifications? Fine; but don't seem like "show-stoppers"?

 

FTR...I don't know how, to run a Docker Safe New Permissions command. Sorry.

Edited February 1 by CDLehner

[trurl]

You don't need to worry about any of that FCP right now.

 

I'm more concerned that you started the array without parity. Why? You will have to rebuild it now.

 

36 minutes ago, CDLehner said:

don't know how, to run a Docker Safe New Permissions command

On the Tools page

 

[trurl]

5 minutes ago, trurl said:

started the array without parity. Why?

All writes are faster without parity, so unbalance would go faster.

 

But you wouldn't have any protection without parity.

 

The disks all looked OK to me, but I assumed you wanted to replace some because of their age.

[CDLehner]

On 1/28/2023 at 11:32 PM, trurl said:

That looks good. Before we build parity, let's take a look at the data disks with the array started.

 

Unassign parity, start the array in normal (not maintenance) mode, then post new diagnostics. 

 

Sorry brother; I thought we were still reverting back to this...until we were ALL done.

[CDLehner]

24 minutes ago, trurl said:

All writes are faster without parity, so unbalance would go faster.

 

But you wouldn't have any protection without parity.

 

The disks all looked OK to me, but I assumed you wanted to replace some because of their age.

 

Are you saying, no protection...in the copy; if we do it w/o Parity? Plus, FTR...I don't think I've done anything, w/o Parity; except start the array when I needed to...for tools.

 

Sure...ALL the disks, probably could use replacing; but I'll worry about that..."after". I'm cool preparing, for a solid "foundation"...for the long-term health of my array; but...I'd like to get my files back, within a reasonable amount of time too.

 

OK, so...put the Parity back in; I guess it'll re-build...and don't take it out, unless you specifically say to?

 

I'll leave the FCP stuff alone. Should I take a run, at that Docker Safe New Permissions command?

 

I haven't said it in a while; but thanks, for ALL the help!

[trurl]

54 minutes ago, CDLehner said:

thought we were still reverting back to this

Sorry, I guess I assumed parity had been built even though I didn't specifically say to do so. That was pages ago and I have probably read a hundred other threads in the meantime.

 

46 minutes ago, CDLehner said:

I don't think I've done anything, w/o Parity

Don't understand what you mean there.

 

When I say "without parity" I mean without a parity disk assigned. Doesn't matter at all what disks are installed if they aren't being used.

 

If you were doing unbalance without parity I would have expected it to go faster than it did though. Were you doing unbalance without parity?

 

 

[trurl]

Looking back at your most recent diagnostics, you did have parity assigned. I assume you must have let it build at some point. It wouldn't have let you assign it without building it unless you did New Config and told it parity was valid (which it wouldn't have been).

 

Now that you have started the array without parity (if I understand you correctly), parity is no longer valid and will have to be rebuilt.

 

Post new diagnostics.

 

 

 

 

[CDLehner]

44 minutes ago, trurl said:

Sorry, I guess I assumed parity had been built even though I didn't specifically say to do so. That was pages ago and I have probably read a hundred other threads in the meantime.

 

So brother...let's start with this: if it ever seems like I'm faulting you...for not following me; it's very unintentional.

 

The thread, is a messy mess...and I know a) I'm not the most knowledgeable user to deal with; and b) you've got LOTS of others to help, beside my sorry a$$.

 

Truth is...even though I try to be very diligent; after all...it's my data we're trying to protect. Sometimes, I don't remember if I did this, with that either.

 

I've put the Parity disk back in, and it's re-building (~18 hours). And...we'll take it from there, starting kinda fresh (already having chopped some of the wood).

 

[CDLehner]

Re-build done; diagnostic attached.

 

I think our next step, is to go back to copying and re-formatting?

unserver-diagnostics-20230202-1256.zip

[trurl]

Looks good.

 

Until you reformat disk5 as xfs you will technically have duplicate files in user shares, but disk1 should take precedence when accessing.

 

Disk6 of course doesn't need to be copied since it is already xfs.

 

So which one is next?

[CDLehner]

1 hour ago, trurl said:

So which one is next?

 

disk2 to disk1?

 

Do it with array on or off?

 

[trurl]

4 hours ago, CDLehner said:

Do it with array on or off?

Don't understand the question. You can't do anything to any files without the array started.

[CDLehner]

1 hour ago, trurl said:

Don't understand the question. You can't do anything to any files without the array started.

 

Sorry. I think I was wondering along the lines, of Parity in the array or out. But that's been asked and answered.

 

Parity in = better protection; so that's what I'm doing. 2-to-1

[CDLehner]

Ugh! I'm getting sooo damn frustrated.

 

Every time, I think I know what to expect from the next step; it seems to throw me.

 

Copy finished, from disk2 to disk1. I stopped the array...changed file type to XFS; started array...gave permission to format, disk2. And then I expected hours, to format...a 3T drive. Just looks like this (after a quick acknowledgement, that it was formatting disk2)

 

 

 

My next step, was going to be...to copy disk3 to disk2?

 

Edited February 3 by CDLehner

[trurl]

Format doesn't write the whole disk. It only writes enough to represent an empty filesystem. Basically just an empty top level folder ready to receive folders and files. Should take minutes or less.

 

I suspect Windows and other GUI OS is the reason people have a very foggy idea of what format does, since it lumps together partitioning, formatting (so-called "quick format") and whatever else it does when it "formats the whole disk". The "quick format" part of that is the only thing that is really formatting.

 

Disk2 is xfs in your screenshot, but it is clipped on the right. I assume it is showing a mostly empty drive now.

 

Sounds like everything is normal. Post diagnostics if you want me to take a closer look.

[trurl]

Why did you decide to format disk2 but you haven't formatted disk5 yet? Are you planning to remove disk5?

[CDLehner]

1 hour ago, trurl said:

Why did you decide to format disk2 but you haven't formatted disk5 yet? Are you planning to remove disk5?

 

Yes, I am planning on removing it; but that's not why I didn't format it. Just pure coincidence.

 

I was just going 2 to 1, 3 to 1; format 3...4 to 3, etc.

 

But you're right; I might as well, shut down the array...pull 5, and then proceed.

 

I'll post a diagnostic after that; but I'll probably start the 4 to 3 copy right away.

[trurl]

To remove a disk, you have to New Config without it and rebuild parity.

[CDLehner]

Thanks. Diagnostic, with disk5 removed...but before New Config/Rebuild.

unserver-diagnostics-20230203-1817.zip

[CDLehner]

On 1/28/2023 at 11:32 PM, trurl said:

That looks good. Before we build parity, let's take a look at the data disks with the array started.

 

Unassign parity, start the array in normal (not maintenance) mode, then post new diagnostics.

 

Actually...I looked back, and I'm going to do this. Unassign parity (now that disk5 is removed, and New Config has been run)...start the array in normal/not maintenance mode; and post that diagnostic.

 

 

Awaiting further instruction. Thanks

 

unserver-diagnostics-20230203-1827.zip

[trurl]

Don't understand where you are going with that. I assume you want to run with parity.

 

If you want to "close the gap" between disk4 and disk6, you could reassign disk9 as disk5. Or rearrange however you want with New Config, reassign parity, and let it rebuild.

 

Unless you have something else in mind. If so, what?

 

 

[CDLehner]

^ No, I wanted disk5…out the array. Last time I unassigned a disk…you had me start array, w/o the parity; and post a diagnostic. So that’s what I did.

 

I just want to get the array down to 1 + 7 (drives); but we’re also reformatting to XFS.

 

So…put Parity back, and do I need to re-build before I do the next copy? (disk3 to disk2)

[trurl]

I wanted to look at it without parity before because we hadn't built parity yet. And I guess we are in a similar situation now since parity needs to be rebuilt.

 

I'm not sure you understood my point about reordering the disks. Of course you want that old disk5 out, but do you want to go through the rest of your life with disks 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9? Why not 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8?

 

When you New Config you can put any disk in any slot you want. The simplest would be to take the disk currently assigned as disk 9 and reassign it as disk5, and leave all others assigned as they are. But you can change any of them you want to as long as you don't assign any data disk to any parity slot. Then assign parity and start the array to rebuild parity.

 

If you don't want to change any assignments, then you can just reassign parity without doing New Config and let parity rebuild.