Wednesday at 11:57 AM4 days Running Unraid version 7.3.2My cache pool (consisting of 2 SSD) stopped working and the status icon for one of my SSDs (device 2) was red and unresponsive to attempts to SMART check. So I assumed the drive was dead and I purchased a replacement. I swapped out the dead drive for a new one (of larger size) and when I turned on the server I assigned the new disc to the missing cache slot (device 2). I started the server (I did not select maintenance mode, though I now wish I had) and it is running a parity check, which is ongoing. But what surprised me is that the Array Operations still say there are "Unmountable disk present" and it lists BOTH cache SSDs, with the option to format both. Currently the status icon for device 1 (the disc with no issues that I am aware of) is green with normal/active operations.I am unclear if this status is normal after a failed cache disc, or if I am dealing with multiple issues at once. I've attached my SMAR T report for device 1 (the "good" drive) that I obtained before disc replacement which looks like it is healthy (to me). When the parity check finishes, will I be able to resume mounting my new cache drive? I'm thinking not. I can see in the Unraid Docs that I should fix any unmountable discs before replacing. I believe my next step will be to run the steps here:https://docs.unraid.net/unraid-os/troubleshooting/common-issues/data-recovery/#unmountable-disksSince this is a cache disc and not a data disc, how do I identify the "disk number" for the xfs_repair command? SAMSUNG_SSD_830_Series_S0WENYAC301776-20260811-1908.txt
Wednesday at 01:16 PM4 days Community Expert 1 hour ago, zero_koop said:I believe my next step will be to run the steps here:https://docs.unraid.net/unraid-os/troubleshooting/common-issues/data-recovery/#unmountable-disksSince this is a cache disc and not a data disc, how do I identify the "disk number" for the xfs_repair command?SAMSUNG_SSD_830_Series_S0WENYAC301776-20260811-1908.txtThose instructions are for array disks (not for pools). Also since you say your ‘cache’ pool had two disks in it it could not have been in xfs format as that is only allowed on single device pools.As was said provide your system’s diagnostics zip file to get informed feedback.
Wednesday at 07:28 PM4 days Author Ah, thank you for correcting me. I've attached my diagnostics. tower-diagnostics-20260812-1527.zip
Wednesday at 09:00 PM4 days Author I'll add that I basically followed the steps outlined in the replace a disk in a pool guide. But that resulted in the unmountable situation. Since one of the original cache pool disks is healthy, do you think I should go through the steps of removing a disk from a pool before trying to add the new replacement disk?
Thursday at 11:11 AM3 days Author 4 hours ago, JorgeB said:Post output from btrfs fi showOutput while array was running:Label: none uuid: 4aedd212-ad60-4abf-9d83-5efbf50ef4d1 Total devices 1 FS bytes used 448.00KiB devid 1 size 20.00GiB used 536.00MiB path /dev/loop2 Couldn't read tree root Label: none uuid: defdcbbc-db9c-459a-a3d6-d3cac4d86547 Total devices 2 FS bytes used 80.51GiB devid 1 size 119.24GiB used 111.23GiB path /dev/sdg1 *** Some devices missingWhen the array is stopped the output is only that second label block ("defdcbbc...).
Thursday at 01:16 PM3 days Author 1 hour ago, JorgeB said:Any idea what happened to the missing device?The ADATA drive that I replaced was unresponsive. I'm assuming it just died. Initially I replaced it and added it to the pool, but I removed it again to see if that changed anything to make the remaining mountable.What I don't understand is why the tree root was not fully replicated on the remaining drive. That's why I put in a second cache drive, for redundancy.
Thursday at 01:42 PM3 days Community Expert Would need previous diags to see the actual pool status; possibly it wasn't actually running as a mirror. The problem is that other than the missing device, the superblock on the remaining pool device is damaged, try thisbtrfs-select-super -s 1 /dev/sdg1Then restart the array and post new diags.
Thursday at 09:15 PM3 days Author 7 hours ago, JorgeB said:Would need previous diags to see the actual pool status; possibly it wasn't actually running as a mirror. The problem is that other than the missing device, the superblock on the remaining pool device is damaged, try thisbtrfs-select-super -s 1 /dev/sdg1Then restart the array and post new diags.I just get:Couldn't read tree rootERROR: open ctree failedShould I try this:btrfs rescue zero-log /dev/sdg1
Friday at 06:42 AM2 days Community Expert You can, but I don't expect that to help in this case. You can also try the recovery options here: https://forums.unraid.net/topic/46802-faq-for-unraid-v6/page/2/#findComment-543490
Friday at 10:31 AM2 days Author 3 hours ago, JorgeB said:You can, but I don't expect that to help in this case. You can also try the recovery options here: https://forums.unraid.net/topic/46802-faq-for-unraid-v6/page/2/#findComment-543490Thanks for your help. Nothing was successful so I guess it looks like it was a total loss. I really do not understand what happened. My system was running great just a few days ago. I thought I had redundancy of drives in my cache system for this exact kind of situation (single disk fail). I guess this was a double disk fail. I am just disappointed. I will swap out both cache drives for new drives and build from there. My data is safe, which is great, but my appdata is gone along with all of the configurations of my dockers. I turned off the appdata auto backups years ago (at least I think I did) because I didn't think it was needed with redundant drives.
Friday at 10:46 AM2 days Community Expert One last thing you may try is to disconnect any devices that were ever used or tried to be used with that pool and retry the recovery options. It doesn't look like the issue here; but in some rare cases, another damaged device from the pool can interfere.
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.