September 22, 201411 yr edit: in my panic i see i posted this on the unraid 6 support board. i am running unraid 5. i posted over there, but now i can't seem to delete this? yikes so rebooted both the computer, and the server. everything came up but i see that its now saying 'disk 8 unformatted'. this was a disk full of media! on reboot there was a parity check started, which i stopped, probably stupid but i panicked. so now i think i have an 'unformated disk' which used to be full, and possibly corrupted parity because of the partial parity check? yikes any suggestions? Here is a smart report for the drive (attached) i do have a backup drive precleared and ready, i could replace disk 8, and try to have parity rebuild onto it? will do nothing until i hear from someone knowledgable! Here's my previous post regarding the troubles i was having before the unformatted disk: Hi all, i'm in a bit of panic mode here! running unraid 5 sometime yesterday, i tried to access one of my server shares through windows, but windows wouldn't open the folder. the windows cursor just spun and spun... tried to access other items on the server and same thing. assumed it was a router or switch problem, so rebooted both router and my switch. no change rebooted pc and server (had to do this with 'reboot' command in putty) no change, cannot see or access any files. wondered if permissions got screwy, so ran the 'newperms' utility. ran overnight, but then it appears it froze. right now can't access the gui, and still can't access any shares. i CAN access the server through putty. as well, i noticed that my plex and sab plugins are working, however plex can't play any files (ie the plex interface shows my movies, but i can't play them, it says server unreachable). as well sab seems to be running, however it also can't seem to access files, i can see there are a couple of tv shows that its trying to extract, but can't really have no idea where to go from here- any suggestions??? smart_report.zip
September 22, 201411 yr Post a screenshot of what you're seeing here please. Make sure to get the entire page horizontally in the shot...
September 22, 201411 yr A disk showing as unformatted unexpectedly often does not really mean that it is really unformatted, but merely that it failed to mount. This is typically caused by some sort of file system corruption that can be fixed using the reiserfsck utility. Do NOT format the disk unless you want to lose its contents. Once you have provided the screenshot requested someone will be able to provide guidance on how to proceed.
September 22, 201411 yr Looking at the screenshot you appear to have a problem with disk8. The next step is: stop the array, and then restart it in Maintenance mode from a telnet or console session run the command reiserfsck --check /dev/md8 since you are checking disk8 The command will run for some hours so if using a telnet session do not close it prematurely. While the array is in maintenance mode you will not be able to access the shares. The chances are that the end reiserfsck will report that it has found some corruption and give a suggested action to fix the corruption. It is a good idea to check back here at that point although the likely advice will be to carry out the recommended action.
September 23, 201411 yr Author actually ran it again because i couldn't read the conclusions this looks neater... seems to say found 6 corruptions that can be fixed only when running with --rebuild-tree... shall i do this? can someone tell me what the full command is ie where to put rebuild-tree? e bad pointer (865) to the block (3905683656) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (866) to the block (2362180684) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (867) to the block (3435692197) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (868) to the block (1082696908) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (869) to the block (2286273552) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (871) to the block (2290879684) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (872) to the block (2214611020) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (873) to the block (2286455820) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (876) to the block (2244527296) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (877) to the block (1229817028) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (878) to the block (2149665926) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (879) to the block (3829783680) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (880) to the block (4039429260) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (881) to the block (3226257604) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (882) to the block (3229647948) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (883) to the block (1217675456) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (884) to the block (538386724) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (885) to the block (925966641) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (886) to the block (596680739) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (887) to the block (1939546160) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (888) to the block (3441627650) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (889) to the block (588350267) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (890) to the block (993100578) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (891) to the block (815792417) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (892) to the block (841037090) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (893) to the block (857846562) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (895) to the block (857829685) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (897) to the block (1647321608) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (898) to the block (841162147) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (899) to the block (3010601761) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (900) to the block (825234747) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (902) to the block (556929827) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (903) to the block (2770548529) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (904) to the block (2165515553) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (905) to the block (597831713) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (907) to the block (823340544) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (909) to the block (839033649) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (910) to the block (855716659) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (911) to the block (909157153) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (912) to the block (858876704) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (915) to the block (841031985) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (916) to the block (2721260304) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (917) to the block (859514368) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (920) to the block (555815682) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (921) to the block (544284705) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (922) to the block (572588049) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (923) to the block (555229488) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (925) to the block (2719363106) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (927) to the block (957855491) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (928) to the block (822456597) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (929) to the block (983134723) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (930) to the block (856695217) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (936) to the block (865316913) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (937) to the block (2736788224) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (938) to the block (908141059) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (939) to the block (503325426) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (940) to the block (555820339) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (942) to the block (1929454389) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (943) to the block (811598594) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (944) to the block (546515235) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (947) to the block (990913072) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (949) to the block (810758402) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (950) to the block (822162339) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (951) to the block (554279731) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (952) to the block (858337554) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (953) to the block (857875256) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (954) to the block (580072737) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (958) to the block (824316672) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (959) to the block (841023520) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (961) to the block (829559297) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (962) to the block (856894256) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (963) to the block (850469649) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (964) to the block (555954487) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (966) to the block (620770119) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (967) to the block (2684362789) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (969) to the block (806696499) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (971) to the block (856793651) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (972) to the block (554868769) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (973) to the block (2742027027) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (975) to the block (865153842) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (976) to the block (704848673) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (978) to the block (589373491) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item (144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1), len 4048, location 48 entry count 0, fsck need 0, format new) has the bad pointer (979) to the block (201493), which is in tree already bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (980) to the block (826351890) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item (144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1), len 4048, location 48 entry count 0, fsck need 0, format new) has the bad pointer (983) to the block (131889), which is in tree already bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (984) to the block (858944371) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (985) to the block (808456961) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (986) to the block (587399215) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (987) to the block (2990215703) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (988) to the block (822358787) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (990) to the block (556806951) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (991) to the block (581054899) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (994) to the block (857846641) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (995) to the block (842076722) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (996) to the block (975307313) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (997) to the block (808456498) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (999) to the block (1361052593) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (1000) to the block (2969645058) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (1004) to the block (2183596832) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (1005) to the block (858919730) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (1007) to the block (827466690) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (1008) to the block (858982448) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (1009) to the block (923935089) bad_indirect_item: block 393142646: The item [144 150 0x1042c1001 IND (1)] has the bad pointer (1010) to the block (1647393658) / 81 (of 170/block 393143667: The level of the node (1819) is not correct, (1) expected the problem in the internal node occured (393143667),/ 6 (of 121-bad_internal: vpf-10330: block 393234848, item 43: The internal item points to the not legal block (2215382093) the problem in the internal node occured (393234848),/ 3 (of 20\bad_internal: vpf-10330: block 220073772, item 127: The internal item points to the not legal block (842265363) the problem in the internal node occured (220073772), whole subtrfinished Comparing bitmaps..vpf-10640: The on-disk and the correct bitmaps differs. Bad nodes were found, Semantic pass skipped 6 found corruptions can be fixed only when running with --rebuild-tree ########### reiserfsck finished at Mon Sep 22 19:17:03 2014 ########### root@Tower:~#
September 23, 201411 yr Use the terminal on the server itself or screen if you have it installed. I do not recommend using telnet from a machine during this because it does take awhile to finish. (Maintenance mode, no shares available during this) reiserfsck --rebuild-tree /dev/md8 After it is done reboot and it should come up normal. If it does not then use (will scan blank space too) reiserfsck --scan-whole-partition --rebuild-tree /dev/md8 I had this same thing a month ago and ended up having to do the scan-whole-partition to fix it and have since started the move to xfs. I wish unraid would show a better label for unmountable drives vs unformatted as it scared me so bad.
September 23, 201411 yr Author uh oh.. finished rebuild-tree, and rebooted, but still came up unformatted! here's the end of the report from the rebuild tree, it looks like it didn't finish? pass0: block 481755137, item 3: The file [1857 1865] has the wrong mode (?r--rwx-wx), corrected to (-r--rwx-wx) pass0: block 481755138, item 3: Not the directory [1857 1874] has the wrong mode (dr-x--x-w-), corrected to (-r-x--x-w-) pass0: block 481755138, item 5: The file [1857 1875] has the wrong mode (?--xrw--wx), corrected to (---xrw--wx) pass0: block 482803387, item 2: The file [2460 2474] has the wrong mode (s-w---xrw-), corrected to (--w---xrw-) left 0, 17660 /sec 97 directory entries were hashed with not set hash. 2750 directory entries were hashed with "r5" hash. "r5" hash is selected Flushing..finished Read blocks (but not data blocks) 436672588 Leaves among those 430570 - corrected leaves 105738 - leaves all contents of which could not be saved and deleted 1 pointers in indirect items to wrong area 22978078 (zeroed) Objectids found 2859 Pass 1 (will try to insert 430569 leaves): ####### Pass 1 ####### Looking for allocable blocks .. finished 0%pass1.c 424 pass1_correct_leaf left 430508, 0 /sec pass1_correct_leaf: block 32829, item 0, pointer 884: The wrong pointer (3301442892) in the file [2 18]. Must be fixed on pass0. Aborted (core dumped) root@Tower:~#
September 23, 201411 yr You are correct - it did not finish. There should be several passes. It will continue to show up as unformatted until reiserfsck completes OK. No idea why it core dumped - this is not something I have seen before. All I can suggest is try again. It might be worth running a memtest first though just in case there is an issue with your RAM as that can produce unpredictable failures.
September 23, 201411 yr Author hmmmm failed again. guess i will try a third time but i welcome any suggestions? Tower login: root Linux 3.9.6p-unRAID. root@Tower:~# screen 235 directory entries were hashed with not set hash. 2859 directory entries were hashed with "r5" hash. "r5" hash is selected Flushing..finished Read blocks (but not data blocks) 488355523 Leaves among those 448773 - corrected leaves 131921 - leaves all contents of which could not be saved and deleted 11 pointers in indirect items to wrong area 29114435 (zeroed) Objectids found 2883 Pass 1 (will try to insert 448762 leaves): ####### Pass 1 ####### Looking for allocable blocks .. finished 0% left 448733, 0 /sec The problem has occurred looks like a hardware problem (perhaps memory). Send us the bug report only if the second run dies at the same place with the same block number. build_the_tree: Nothing but leaves are expected. Block 32797 - unknown Aborted (core dumped) root@Tower:~#
September 23, 201411 yr Looking at the error message in more detail, it is failing because of a hardware problem on the disk of some sort. Not sure at the moment of the best recommendation for proceeding.
September 23, 201411 yr Author would it make sense to pull the drive into my windows machine? i guess i don't know if there's any windows programs that can read the reiser file system.... as well, the file system is likely screwed up anyway? any other recommendations? if i moved the drive to windows (assuming anything could be read) i could still use my server, and recreate parity and protect the other drives
September 24, 201411 yr Did you try it with scan whole partition option? Also are you doing it from the server itself, screen or telnet?
September 24, 201411 yr Did you try it with scan whole partition option? Also are you doing it from the server itself, screen or telnet? That is not going to help if you get an error message about a hardware error when using the --rebuild-tree option.
September 24, 201411 yr Author hi guys... well i tried for the third time and still got the core dump failure. have tried twice with rebuild tree, and once with rebuild tree and scan whole partition. to answer a previously asked question, i ran this using screen inside of puTTY. getting nervous about having this drive in the array and disrupting parity. note that you can see in my pics that i have sync errors. also, my monthly parity check is going to run on 1st of the month soon still wondering if i should remove the drive for now, and tinker with it in windows? would like to recover the data in my windows machine? thoughts? Tower login: root Linux 3.9.6p-unRAID. root@Tower:~# screen 120 directory entries were hashed with not set hash. 1628 directory entries were hashed with "r5" hash. "r5" hash is selected Flushing..finished Read blocks (but not data blocks) 436243244 Leaves among those 416474 - corrected leaves 125783 - leaves all contents of which could not be saved and deleted 24 pointers in indirect items to wrong area 27983086 (zeroed) Objectids found 2772 Pass 1 (will try to insert 416450 leaves): ####### Pass 1 ####### Looking for allocable blocks .. finished 0% left 416449, 0 /sec The problem has occurred looks like a hardware problem (perhaps memory). Send us the bug report only if the second run dies at the same place with the same block number. build_the_tree: Nothing but leaves are expected. Block 8211 - unknown Aborted (core dumped) root@Tower:~#
September 24, 201411 yr Author wondering if i should install the drive into my windows machine and try to use this http://yareg.akucom.de/ you can probably tell that i'm anxious to rebuild parity, i have several older drives, all reporting good, but they are quite old.
September 24, 201411 yr There is also the tool at http://www.diskinternals.com/linux-reader/ that I have heard others have had success using in reading Linux files in Windows.
September 24, 201411 yr Author thanks i guess i will take the drive out tonight, move it to my windows machine, and try the programs to try to read the files not sure if the corrupt file system will let me read anything though. i do appreciate all the help though! not trying to sound depressed!
September 24, 201411 yr Personally, I would not be in a big hurry to rebuild parity. If you have a hardware failure on disk 8, it will have to be replaced. I, personally, would want to use the current parity to see if it could be used to rebuild the data on disk 8. If that works, you have solved your problem with complete data recovery. However, you could end up in a situation where the parity information has been corrupted by an earlier attempt to rebuild parity. (That is why I personally think that rebuilding parity (as opposed to 'non-correcting parity' checking) is the last thing one should attempt until hardware issues have been resolved.) My approach would be to stop the array and not restart it until disk 8 has been replaced by a new disk that has been precleared. Install that new disk and see if a data rebuild on the new disk works. If that works-- WONDERFUL!!!! If not, add the new disk as an empty new data disk. Then you can try to use one of the Windows ReiserFS plugins to recover as much data as possible from the old disk. This will probably take a long time as you should probably only do three or four files at a time so you can find (and skip) the bad ones.
September 24, 201411 yr Author thanks that sounds like an awesome idea... i have been assuming my parity is not valid, but i don't know that for sure. i do have a fresh precleared drive so i'll add that, and try to restore to it. before that, i'll try the rebuild one final time, running it right from the server. likely won't matter but i can get this running before work, see if it worked, if not replace the drives tonight
September 24, 201411 yr Author On further reflection parity might be in trouble. I have been writing to the array for new tv shows a couple of times while the array shows disk 8 as unformatted. In other words I've been flipping from maintenance mode to run the Reiser checks, and then back to normal mode to update my shows. Only done this for a couple of days I guess my question is that while I've been writing to the array and updating parity, is unraid using my unformatted disk or ignoring it?
September 24, 201411 yr On further reflection parity might be in trouble. I have been writing to the array for new tv shows a couple of times while the array shows disk 8 as unformatted. In other words I've been flipping from maintenance mode to run the Reiser checks, and then back to normal mode to update my shows. Only done this for a couple of days I guess my question is that while I've been writing to the array and updating parity, is unraid using my unformatted disk or ignoring it? As I understand it, writing data to ANOTHER disk is not cause parity to be 'wrong'. The only two disks that are spun-up and written to in this operation are the parity disk and the disk that the data is stored on. A problem could arise if you run a 'correct-parity' parity check. In this case, all of the data disks are read, a new parity is calculated and written to the parity disk. If all of the data disks can be read and the data on them is correct, then the 'new' parity written to the parity disk will also be correct. However, I think you can see that the problem if a disk can't be read at some point in the parity update. What is the state of the information on the parity disk? I don't have any answer to that question. I would certainly try to rebuild the new disk first from the existing parity and see what happens. If it fails, then go from there. If the rebuild is successful, then I would check to see if it looks like all of the files are good.
September 25, 201411 yr Author just a brief update my fourth rebuild failed, this time running directly from the server so i powered down, removed disk 8, and replaced with my previously precleared drive. booted up, it said disk missing, so i selected the new disk into the disk 8 slot, and then cstarted the array using 'start array, begin process of data rebuild' i was a bit surprised to see the data rebuild start, but also it still says 'unformatted disk present' along with the option to format? even while the rebuild is happening? maybe this is because i am replacing an 'unformatted drive with another one? seems a little off but maybe this is normal behavior. i guess I hope that when i'm done, i won't still be stuck with an unformatted drive??? here's a pic
September 25, 201411 yr What disk is shown as unformatted? If it is disk 8, I seem to recalled that this is normal. Wait a bit and see if someone else will jump in and confirm. (If you are real brave, and disk 8 is the unformatted one, it won't hurt to format it. There is no data on it anyway!)
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.