October 5, 201213 yr I have an ARC-1210 with two Hitachi 4TB drives with one 4000GB RAID0 for Parity and one 1024GB RAID1 for Cache. After the initial parity sync completed, the Parity "red-balled". Any help would be most appreciated! syslog-2012-10-05-After-Parity-Sync.zip
October 5, 201213 yr Your syslog is filled with lots of messages like this: Oct 5 11:37:00 nas kernel: sda1: rw=1, want=7999998480, limit=7999998424 Oct 5 11:37:00 nas kernel: attempt to access beyond end of device Oct 5 11:37:00 nas kernel: sda1: rw=1, want=7999998488, limit=7999998424 Oct 5 11:37:00 nas kernel: attempt to access beyond end of device Apparently your disk controller cannot handle the larger disks, or you set your math wrong. 7999998424 * 512 = 4095999193088 bytes 7999998488 * 512 = 4095999225856 bytes Joe L.
October 5, 201213 yr Author Your syslog is filled with lots of messages like this: Oct 5 11:37:00 nas kernel: sda1: rw=1, want=7999998480, limit=7999998424 Oct 5 11:37:00 nas kernel: attempt to access beyond end of device Oct 5 11:37:00 nas kernel: sda1: rw=1, want=7999998488, limit=7999998424 Oct 5 11:37:00 nas kernel: attempt to access beyond end of device Apparently your disk controller cannot handle the larger disks, or you set your math wrong. 7999998424 * 512 = 4095999193088 bytes 7999998488 * 512 = 4095999225856 bytes Joe L. Thanks Joe! I kind of got the idea of what those errors meant, but I wasnt 100% sure. I guess at this point I'm going make the parity partition a little smaller and see what happened. It occurred at 99.9% of parity-sync, so maybe a just a little smaller will do the trick.
October 5, 201213 yr Author When I create the volume set, there are three options for "Greater than 2TB support". I initially selected "4k Block". Should I choose "64-bit LBA" instead? Thanks!
October 5, 201213 yr When I create the volume set, there are three options for "Greater than 2TB support". I initially selected "4k Block". Should I choose "64-bit LBA" instead? Thanks! Absolutely no idea. You are well into the customization area here.
October 6, 201213 yr Author I made the volume a little smaller and its rebuilding. The parity sync is going WAY faster than it was at this point with the previous config.
October 6, 201213 yr Author Well, that didnt work. I got two errors at the end of the parity sync again. Oct 6 02:37:51 nas kernel: attempt to access beyond end of device Oct 6 02:37:51 nas kernel: sda1: rw=1, want=7832030688, limit=7832030680 Oct 6 02:37:51 nas kernel: md: disk0 write error Oct 6 02:37:51 nas kernel: attempt to access beyond end of device Oct 6 02:37:51 nas kernel: sda1: rw=1, want=7832030696, limit=7832030680 Oct 6 02:37:51 nas kernel: handle_stripe write error: 7832030680/0, count: 1 Oct 6 02:37:51 nas kernel: md: md_do_sync: got signal, exit... Oct 6 02:37:51 nas kernel: md: disk0 write error Oct 6 02:37:51 nas kernel: handle_stripe write error: 7832030688/0, count: 1 Oct 6 02:37:51 nas kernel: md: recovery thread sync completion status: -4 Oct 6 02:37:51 nas kernel: md: recovery thread woken up ... Oct 6 02:37:51 nas kernel: md: recovery thread has nothing to resync
October 26, 201213 yr StevenD, Did you get this issue resolved? Did you end up going back to a different config? Did you end up leaving both parity and cache coming off of the Areca card? Thanks!
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.