mdadm changes the name of my new array to md127... topic

Hello everyone,

This has been bugging me for some time now. Every time I create a new array using mdadm the name is changed from what I originally specified.

Here's what I'm doing.

Created the array from two new disks:

Code:

---

mdadm --create --verbose /dev/md0 --level=1 --raid-devices=2 /dev/sdc1 /dev/sdd1

---

Made the filesystem:

Code:

---

mkfs.ext3 /dev/md0

---

Updated mdadm.conf:

Code:

---

mdadm --detail --scan >> /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf

---

Added the array to /etc/fstab:

Code:

---

/dev/md0 /mnt/mymountpoint ext3 defaults 0 1

---

Everything looks great... until I reboot the machine.

Upon reboot I receive the message that the filesystem on /dev/md0 is either missing or busy. I skip this... and then discover that my new array is no longer called /dev/md0.

Now, it is /dev/md127.

What am I doing wrong? This happens every time I create an array and on multiple different systems. I'm assuming that I'm just being an idiot here but your help is greatly appreciated as I would prefer for my arrays to retain the name I specify when creating them.

Thank you!

[ubuntu] 14.04 mdadm + bcache with an SSD? topic

Hi everyone,
i have a Lenovo P300 Workstation configured with Ubuntu 14.04 LTS 64 bit and working with the following configuration:
-/dev/sda 2tb hdd, /dev/sda1 /boot, /dev/sda2 /swap, /dev/sda3 / - part of raid
-/dev/sdb 2tb hdd, /dev/sda1 unused, /dev/sda2 /swap, /dev/sda3 / - part of raid


I've also bought a 256GB SSD, /dev/sdc.
I'm trying to find if it's possible to configure this SSD as cache of the root "/" partition /dev/md0, that is a raid 1 software with mdadm! Any ideas or link for me? Google isn't helping... : (


Thanks in advance

mdadm disk replacement keeps failing topic

Hi,

I have a Raid 5 setup thats been running for years. About 3 time I had a disk fail, and replaced it with a new one. I'm no Linux expert so I have been working mainly through webmin doing all this.

2 months ago I had another disk fail, and I replaced it with a used disk I had laying around (according to sticker its almost 6 years old). At the same time I decided to reinstall the OS. I'm now running Ubuntu Linux 14.10.

A week ago I noticed degraded performance so I checked s.m.a.r.t status, and the the last added disk had 394 errors. I decided to buy a new one and swapped it in yesterday. This process went differently than usual. After boot madam didn't recover the raid. I got it back up by:

Code:

---

sudo mdadm --stop /dev/md127

---

and

Code:

---

mdadm --assemble --force /dev/md127 /dev/sda2 /dev/sdb2 /dev/sdc2 /dev/sdd2

---

The raid came up and started to rebuild itself. Speed was ok but after some hours someting happened.

Code:

---

henrik@ocean:~$ sudo mdadm --detail /dev/md127[sudo] password for henrik:
/dev/md127:
        Version : 0.90
  Creation Time : Sun Jan 16 16:54:05 2011
    Raid Level : raid5
    Array Size : 5766792000 (5499.64 GiB 5905.20 GB)
  Used Dev Size : 1922264000 (1833.21 GiB 1968.40 GB)
  Raid Devices : 4
  Total Devices : 4
Preferred Minor : 127
    Persistence : Superblock is persistent


    Update Time : Sun Feb  8 07:58:01 2015
          State : clean, FAILED
Active Devices : 2
Working Devices : 3
Failed Devices : 1
  Spare Devices : 1


        Layout : left-symmetric
    Chunk Size : 64K


          UUID : 6b4d814c:5c337c42:e68158d3:bcc31e01
        Events : 0.371442


    Number  Major  Minor  RaidDevice State
      0      0        0        0      removed
      2      0        0        2      removed
      2      8      34        2      active sync  /dev/sdc2
      3      8      50        3      active sync  /dev/sdd2


      4      8        2        -      faulty  /dev/sda2
      5      8      18        -      spare  /dev/sdb2
henrik@ocean:~$ sudo mdadm --detail /dev/md127

---

I rebooted and the raid didn't come up. I assembled it again and the same thing happened after some hours.

The disk I replaced is /dev/sdb. Why is it set as spare? Is it working as part of the raid?

Should I replace /dev/sda now? It seems to have a fine s.m.a.r.t report.

The raid is up and I can access the data. But this situation is not stable. Any advice is appreciated.

/Henrik