February 19, 201214 yr Hi I replaced my case due to not enough space, so i transferred everything to the new one and booted up, at first disk 3 wasn't recognized so i shutdown and replaced the sata cable and booted up, and it was now recognized. Parity check started and about halfway it stopped and disk 4 had an error, so i tried to shutdown and unRAID became unresponsive and i had to manually press the power button to shut it down. I replaced the sata cable to drive 4 and booted up and now i have 2 disk showing as unformatted, i would like to know what should i do? I checked all the connections and everything seems fine. Syslog is attached. Thank you for any help edit - im not running any addons on unraid syslog.zip
February 19, 201214 yr Author followed another post where Joe said to run these commands, For disk1 fdisk -lu /dev/sdk and disk2 fdisk -lu /dev/sdb here is what i got: Disk /dev/sdk: 1500.3 GB, 1500301910016 bytes 1 heads, 63 sectors/track, 46512336 cylinders, total 2930277168 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x00000000 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdk1 64 2930277167 1465138552 83 Linux Partition 1 does not end on cylinder boundary. Disk /dev/sdb: 2000.3 GB, 2000398934016 bytes 1 heads, 63 sectors/track, 62016336 cylinders, total 3907029168 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x00000000 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdb1 64 3907029167 1953514552 83 Linux Partition 1 does not end on cylinder boundary. Only ever used unraid 4.7 edit: ran this dd if=/dev/sdk count=195 | od -c -A d | sed 30q and got : Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdb1 64 3907029167 1953514552 83 Linux Partition 1 does not end on cylinder boundary. root@Tower:~# root@Tower:~# dd if=/dev/sdk count=195 | od -c -A d | sed 30q 195+0 records in 195+0 records out 99840 bytes (100 kB) copied, 0.00126486 s, 78.9 MB/s 0000000 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 * 0000448 \0 \0 203 \0 \0 \0 @ \0 \0 \0 360 z 250 256 \0 \0 0000464 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 * 0000496 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 U 252 0000512 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 * 0098304 ^ 017 325 025 243 \f t \0 220 002 301 \0 022 \0 \0 \0 0098320 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 004 \0 \0 247 375 242 0098336 204 003 \0 \0 036 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 020 314 003 0098352 020 \0 002 \0 R e I s E r 2 F s \0 \0 \0 0098368 003 \0 \0 \0 005 \0 253 + 002 \0 \0 \0 J 001 \0 \0 0098384 001 \0 \0 \0 c 221 206 231 Q < J 232 255 1 305 v 0098400 313 R 303 343 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 0098416 \0 \0 \0 \0 6 \0 036 \0 L u ~ M \0 N 355 \0 0098432 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 * 0098496 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 001 \0 \0 \0 0098512 035 1 \0 \0 , 1 \0 \0 242 1 \0 \0 257 1 \0 \0 0098528 024 8 \0 \0 8 \0 \0 * 8 \0 \0 - 8 \0 \0 0098544 G 9 \0 \0 I 9 \0 \0 K 9 \0 \0 ~ 9 \0 \0 0098560 364 : \0 \0 371 : \0 \0 341 ; \0 \0 371 : \0 \0 0098576 341 ; \0 \0 324 7 \0 \0 306 8 \0 \0 324 7 \0 \0 0098592 306 8 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 0098608 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 * 0099840 ran this: dd if=/dev/sdb count=195 | od -c -A d | sed 30q 195+0 records in 195+0 records out 99840 bytes (100 kB) copied, 0.0279884 s, 3.6 MB/s 0000000 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 * 0000448 \0 \0 203 \0 \0 \0 @ \0 \0 \0 p 210 340 350 \0 \0 0000464 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 * 0000496 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 U 252 0000512 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 * 0098304 016 021 034 035 343 I { 016 n \0 \f 031 022 \0 \0 \0 0098320 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 004 \0 \0 272 374 m 022 0098336 204 003 \0 \0 036 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 020 314 003 0098352 002 \0 002 \0 R e I s E r 2 F s \0 \0 \0 0098368 003 \0 \0 \0 005 \0 9 : 002 \0 \0 \0 \0 002 \0 \0 0098384 001 \0 \0 \0 L 350 M 022 M 376 E 304 227 341 026 225 0098400 271 325 y 231 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 0098416 \0 \0 \0 \0 \r \0 036 \0 i 2 317 N \0 N 355 \0 0098432 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 * 0098496 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 001 \0 \0 \0 0098512 346 033 \0 \0 = 031 \0 \0 > 031 \0 \0 = 031 \0 \0 0098528 > 031 \0 \0 006 025 \0 \0 006 025 \0 \0 \v 025 \0 \0 0098544 \v 025 \0 \0 023 025 \0 \0 023 025 \0 \0 022 025 \0 \0 0098560 023 025 \0 \0 022 025 \0 \0 023 025 \0 \0 021 025 \0 \0 0098576 023 025 \0 \0 305 024 \0 \0 023 025 \0 \0 305 024 \0 \0 * 0098608 023 025 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 0098624 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 * 0099840 so it seems like it starts on sector 64 like its supposed to.
February 19, 201214 yr followed another post where Joe said to run these commands, For disk1 fdisk -lu /dev/sdk and disk2 fdisk -lu /dev/sdb here is what i got: Disk /dev/sdk: 1500.3 GB, 1500301910016 bytes 1 heads, 63 sectors/track, 46512336 cylinders, total 2930277168 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x00000000 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdk1 64 2930277167 1465138552 83 Linux Partition 1 does not end on cylinder boundary. Disk /dev/sdb: 2000.3 GB, 2000398934016 bytes 1 heads, 63 sectors/track, 62016336 cylinders, total 3907029168 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x00000000 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdb1 64 3907029167 1953514552 83 Linux Partition 1 does not end on cylinder boundary. Only ever used unraid 4.7 That shows the partitions start on sector 64. Now, type the "dd" commands as shown in the other post to see where the file-system actually resides. If on sector 64, they (the file systems) need repair using reisefsck, if they actually start on sector 63, the MBR needs to be fixed to point to the correct starting sector on the disk, using the partition_unraid_disk.sh utility I wrote (or whatever disk partitioning tool you like if you are more comfortable using them)
February 19, 201214 yr Author edited my previous post as you wer posting lol, they both start on sector 64 I ran this after, reiserfsck --check /dev/sdk1 and it came back with no error, ran it for sdb and it said bad blocks found, what should i do next?
February 19, 201214 yr edited my previous post as you wer posting lol, they both start on sector 64 I ran this after, reiserfsck --check /dev/sdk1 and it came back with no error, ran it for sdb and it said bad blocks found, what should i do next? post EXACTLY the output. run it for /dev/sdb1 (actually, you should run it on the affiliated /dev/md1 and /dev/md2 devices, not the physical drives, otherwise fixing the drive does not fix parity) Joe L.
February 19, 201214 yr Author here is the output The problem has occurred looks like a hardware problem. If you have bad blocks, we advise you to get a new hard drive, because once you get one bad block that the disk drive internals cannot hide from your sight,the chances of getting more are generally said to become much higher (precise statistics are unknown to us), and this disk drive is probably not expensive enough for you to you to risk your time and data on it. If you don't want to follow that follow that advice then if you have just a few bad blocks, try writing to the bad blocks and see if the drive remaps the bad blocks (that means it takes a block it has in reserve and allocates it for use for of that block number). If it cannot remap the block, use badblock option (-B) with reiserfs utils to handle this block correctly. bread: Cannot read the block (2): (Input/output error). Aborted im kinda new to linux, what are the md1 and md2 devices? i tried to reply but i get an error 404... so i sent you a pm joe
February 19, 201214 yr If it cannot remap the block, use badblock option (-B) with reiserfs utils to handle this block correctly. bread: Cannot read the block (2): (Input/output error). Bad advice for ANY disk in ANY raid array. (Fine if not in a RAID array) Even though you can use the bad-blocks list to exclude a given block on a specific disk, it is still in use on all the other disks, therefore, any attempt to re-construct one of them will result in an attempt to read the block skipped. (and a failure to re-construct the other disk correctly) Joe L.
February 19, 201214 yr Author I have a spare drive being precleared to replace the one with the error, should be done by the end of the day also while reading the other post(http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=15385.0 post 9), i saw that it was fine to run initconfig, so after testing sdk without errors i ran initconfig and rebooted unraid (I figured sdb would be the same without errors too), and now it said parity sync invalid so i panicked and stopped it... and now if i run reiserfsck --check /dev/sdk1, here's what it says: Will read-only check consistency of the filesystem on /dev/sdk1 Will put log info to 'stdout' Do you want to run this program?[N/Yes] (note need to type Yes if you do):Yes reiserfs_open: the reiserfs superblock cannot be found on /dev/sdk1. Failed to open the filesystem. If the partition table has not been changed, and the partition is valid and it really contains a reiserfs partition, then the superblock is corrupted and you need to run this utility with --rebuild-sb. What would be my next step? Should i run rebuild-sb?
February 19, 201214 yr Author ran this again dd if=/dev/sdk count=195 | od -c -A d | sed 30q and here is what it said: root@Tower:~# dd if=/dev/sdk count=195 | od -c -A d | sed 30q 195+0 records in 195+0 records out 99840 bytes (100 kB) copied, 6.37156 s, 15.7 kB/s 0000000 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 * 0000448 \0 \0 203 \0 \0 \0 @ \0 \0 \0 360 z 250 256 \0 \0 0000464 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 * 0000496 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 U 252 0000512 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 * 0098304 001 \0 001 \0 \0 \0 - 302 { 274 \ } b 240 i 353 0098320 271 247 025 355 312 277 236 331 317 ; \0 \0 337 ; \0 \0 0098336 001 020 / 4 001 \0 \0 020 \0 \0 320 017 0 \0 001 \0 0098352 265 K , 022 266 K , 022 267 K , 022 270 K , 022 0098368 271 K , 022 272 K , 022 273 K , 022 274 K , 022 0098384 275 K , 022 276 K , 022 277 K , 022 300 K , 022 0098400 301 K , 022 302 K , 022 303 K , 022 304 K , 022 0098416 305 K , 022 306 K , 022 307 K , 022 310 K , 022 0098432 311 K , 022 312 K , 022 313 K , 022 314 K , 022 0098448 315 K , 022 316 K , 022 317 K , 022 320 K , 022 0098464 321 K , 022 322 K , 022 323 K , 022 324 K , 022 0098480 325 K , 022 326 K , 022 327 K , 022 330 K , 022 0098496 331 K , 022 332 K , 022 333 K , 022 334 K , 022 0098512 335 K , 022 336 K , 022 337 K , 022 340 K , 022 0098528 341 K , 022 342 K , 022 343 K , 022 344 K , 022 0098544 345 K , 022 346 K , 022 347 K , 022 350 K , 022 0098560 351 K , 022 352 K , 022 353 K , 022 354 K , 022 0098576 355 K , 022 356 K , 022 357 K , 022 360 K , 022 0098592 361 K , 022 362 K , 022 363 K , 022 364 K , 022 0098608 365 K , 022 366 K , 022 367 K , 022 370 K , 022 0098624 371 K , 022 372 K , 022 373 K , 022 374 K , 022 0098640 375 K , 022 376 K , 022 377 K , 022 \0 L , 022
February 19, 201214 yr ran this again dd if=/dev/sdk count=195 | od -c -A d | sed 30q and here is what it said: root@Tower:~# dd if=/dev/sdk count=195 | od -c -A d | sed 30q 195+0 records in 195+0 records out 99840 bytes (100 kB) copied, 6.37156 s, 15.7 kB/s 0000000 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 * 0000448 \0 \0 203 \0 \0 \0 @ \0 \0 \0 360 z 250 256 \0 \0 0000464 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 * 0000496 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 U 252 0000512 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 * 0098304 001 \0 001 \0 \0 \0 - 302 { 274 \ } b 240 i 353 0098320 271 247 025 355 312 277 236 331 317 ; \0 \0 337 ; \0 \0 0098336 001 020 / 4 001 \0 \0 020 \0 \0 320 017 0 \0 001 \0 0098352 265 K , 022 266 K , 022 267 K , 022 270 K , 022 0098368 271 K , 022 272 K , 022 273 K , 022 274 K , 022 0098384 275 K , 022 276 K , 022 277 K , 022 300 K , 022 0098400 301 K , 022 302 K , 022 303 K , 022 304 K , 022 0098416 305 K , 022 306 K , 022 307 K , 022 310 K , 022 0098432 311 K , 022 312 K , 022 313 K , 022 314 K , 022 0098448 315 K , 022 316 K , 022 317 K , 022 320 K , 022 0098464 321 K , 022 322 K , 022 323 K , 022 324 K , 022 0098480 325 K , 022 326 K , 022 327 K , 022 330 K , 022 0098496 331 K , 022 332 K , 022 333 K , 022 334 K , 022 0098512 335 K , 022 336 K , 022 337 K , 022 340 K , 022 0098528 341 K , 022 342 K , 022 343 K , 022 344 K , 022 0098544 345 K , 022 346 K , 022 347 K , 022 350 K , 022 0098560 351 K , 022 352 K , 022 353 K , 022 354 K , 022 0098576 355 K , 022 356 K , 022 357 K , 022 360 K , 022 0098592 361 K , 022 362 K , 022 363 K , 022 364 K , 022 0098608 365 K , 022 366 K , 022 367 K , 022 370 K , 022 0098624 371 K , 022 372 K , 022 373 K , 022 374 K , 022 0098640 375 K , 022 376 K , 022 377 K , 022 \0 L , 022 There is no reiser file-system on that drive.
February 19, 201214 yr If it cannot remap the block, use badblock option (-B) with reiserfs utils to handle this block correctly. bread: Cannot read the block (2): (Input/output error). Bad advice for ANY disk in ANY raid array. (Fine if not in a RAID array) Even though you can use the bad-blocks list to exclude a given block on a specific disk, it is still in use on all the other disks, therefore, any attempt to re-construct one of them will result in an attempt to read the block skipped. (and a failure to re-construct the other disk correctly) Joe L. How is this different from reallocated sectors? Does this change the partition in way that is not transparent to unRAID?
February 19, 201214 yr If it cannot remap the block, use badblock option (-B) with reiserfs utils to handle this block correctly. bread: Cannot read the block (2): (Input/output error). Bad advice for ANY disk in ANY raid array. (Fine if not in a RAID array) Even though you can use the bad-blocks list to exclude a given block on a specific disk, it is still in use on all the other disks, therefore, any attempt to re-construct one of them will result in an attempt to read the block skipped. (and a failure to re-construct the other disk correctly) Joe L. How is this different from reallocated sectors? Does this change the partition in way that is not transparent to unRAID? you can use a bad-block-list when creating a reiserfs file system. That file system will not use those blocks.. They are not re-allocated, they are simply not used by the files on that file-system. However, they will still be used when calculating parity, or when re-constructing any other failed disk that uses those exact same blocks on their respective disks. You would have to submit the exact same bad blocks list to every drive when creating their file systems. As I said, nice feature, but useless in a RAID array of any kind.
February 19, 201214 yr Author moved to another thread to make it more detailed and organized, here it is http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=18577.0
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.