Jump to content

Drive 'disabled' under 5.x is ok under 4.7


CiXel

Recommended Posts

Hi Gang-

I'm having a disabled drive issue using beta 12 (well same happens with beta 8 and up)

When I boot up sdq (disk 19) shows 'red' and unmenu confirms it's due to 'Disk_Dsbl'.

Under 4.7 everything is golden.

I know the drive is ok as I've tested it, but unraid will not let go of its 'disabled' status in beta.

 

I can pull the drive out of the array and run on parity, but once I reinsert the drive we're back to disabled.

 

What's my best bet for disabling this flag?

 

 

syslog-2011-08-31b12.txt

Link to comment

I've had similar experiences with the latest betas..  Could be just coincidence, but I only had one drive faliure in over 3 years with the 4* series. As soon as I moved to version 5, I've had 3 just stack up with errors and red ball on me. Cables are fine, no power splitters. Chuck them into a version 4 server, run pre-clear, and all is well.

 

Strange.

Link to comment

sdq appears to be Drive 12, so perhaps you meant sdr, Drive 19, at least in this syslog?  Unfortunately, there are no problems evident in this syslog, the array seems to be completely fine, with all drives mounted correctly.  The only thing I can see that is slightly problematic is that the drives on the port multiplier card (including sdr Drive 19) had some initial struggles getting setup, but they did eventually succeed.

 

Tom has changed the drive configuration, used to be in a super.dat list of major/minors that could indicate a disabled drive, but that is no longer visible in the syslog, so there is no way I can see whether a drive is disabled, especially when it appears to be mounted successfully here.

Link to comment

I had the same thing going from 5B6a to 5b8. I eventually just stopped the array, remove that drive and replaced it with a spare and restarted.

 

I later precleard that drive and it had minor smart errors. it is now back in the array. I could have probably rebuilt on top of the same drive. but, i wanted to be sure it was good.

 

I do recall that in going into Beta8 and adding of 3Tb drives, parity now checks parts of the drives that it did not look at before. perhaps B8+ is seeing something outside the "data" area that it does not like.

 

 

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...