|author||Michael Tokarev <firstname.lastname@example.org>||2014-12-20 08:48:44 +0000|
|committer||Michael Tokarev <email@example.com>||2014-12-20 08:48:44 +0000|
mdadm (3.3.2-5) unstable; urgency=medium
* use-tempnode-not-devnode.patch: change udev rules file to use $tempnode which works both on wheezy and jessie udev, instead of $devnode which only works in jessie. At this stage it is better to make rules file compatible with old version instead of adding versioned dependency. Should be removed for jessie+1. (Closes: #770883) * fix Closes: list in previous entry (Closes: #771852) # imported from the archive
Diffstat (limited to 'debian/FAQ')
1 files changed, 581 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/debian/FAQ b/debian/FAQ
new file mode 100644
@@ -0,0 +1,581 @@
+Frequently asked questions -- Debian mdadm
+Also see /usr/share/doc/mdadm/README.recipes.gz .
+The latest version of this FAQ is available here:
+0. What does MD stand for?
+ MD is an abbreviation for "multiple device" (also often called "multi-
+ disk"). The Linux MD implementation implements various strategies for
+ combining multiple physical devices into single logical ones. The most
+ common use case is commonly known as "Software RAID". Linux supports RAID
+ levels 1, 4, 5, 6, and 10, as well as the "pseudo-redundant" RAID level 0.
+ In addition, the MD implementation covers linear and multipath
+ Most people refer to MD as RAID. Since the original name of the RAID
+ configuration software is "md"adm, I chose to use MD consistently instead.
+1. How do I overwrite ("zero") the superblock?
+ mdadm --zero-superblock /dev/mdX
+ Note that this is a destructive operation. It does not actually delete any
+ data, but the device will have lost its "authority". You cannot assemble the
+ array with it anymore, and if you add the device to another array, the
+ synchronisation process *will* *overwrite* all data on the device.
+ Nevertheless, sometimes it is necessary to zero the superblock:
+ - If you are reusing a disk that has been part of an array with an different
+ superblock version and/or location. In this case you zero the superblock
+ before you assemble the array, or add the device to an array.
+ - If you are trying to prevent a device from being recognised as part of an
+ array. Say for instance you are trying to change an array spanning sd[ab]1
+ to sd[bc]1 (maybe because sda is failing or too slow), then automatic
+ (scan) assembly will still recognise sda1 as a valid device. You can limit
+ the devices to scan with the DEVICE keyword in the configuration file, but
+ this may not be what you want. Instead, zeroing the superblock will
+ (permanently) prevent a device from being considered as part of an array.
+2. How do I change the preferred minor of an MD array (RAID)?
+ See item 12 in /usr/share/doc/mdadm/README.recipes.gz and read the mdadm
+ manpage (search for 'preferred').
+3. How does mdadm determine which /dev/mdX or /dev/md/X to use?
+ The logic used by mdadm to determine the device node name in the mdadm
+ --examine output (which is used to generate mdadm.conf) depends on several
+ factors. Here's how mdadm determines it:
+ It first checks the superblock version of a given array (or each array in
+ turn when iterating all of them). Run
+ mdadm --detail /dev/mdX | sed -ne 's,.*Version : ,,p'
+ to determine the superblock version of a running array, or
+ mdadm --examine /dev/sdXY | sed -ne 's,.*Version : ,,p'
+ to determine the superblock version from a component device of an array.
+ Version 0 superblocks (00.90.XX)
+ You need to know the preferred minor number stored in the superblock,
+ so run either of
+ mdadm --detail /dev/mdX | sed -ne 's,.*Preferred Minor : ,,p'
+ mdadm --examine /dev/sdXY | sed -ne 's,.*Preferred Minor : ,,p'
+ Let's call the resulting number MINOR. Also see FAQ 2 further up.
+ Given MINOR, mdadm will output /dev/md<MINOR> if the device node
+ /dev/md<MINOR> exists.
+ Otherwise, it outputs /dev/md/<MINOR>
+ Version 1 superblocks (01.XX.XX)
+ Version 1 superblocks actually seem to ignore preferred minors and instead
+ use the value of the name field in the superblock. Unless specified
+ explicitly during creation (-N|--name) the name is determined from the
+ device name used, using the following regexp: 's,/dev/md/?(.*),$1,', thus:
+ /dev/md0 -> 0
+ /dev/md/0 -> 0
+ /dev/md_d0 -> _d0 (d0 in later versions)
+ /dev/md/d0 -> d0
+ /dev/md/name -> name
+ (/dev/name does not seem to work)
+ mdadm will append the name to '/dev/md/', so it will always output device
+ names under the /dev/md/ directory. Newer versions can create a symlink
+ from /dev/mdX. See the symlinks option in mdadm.con(5) and mdadm(8).
+ If you want to change the name, you can do so during assembly:
+ mdadm -A -U name -N newname /dev/mdX /dev/sd[abc]X
+ I know this all sounds inconsistent and upstream has some work to do.
+ We're on it.
+4. Which RAID level should I use?
+ Many people seem to prefer RAID4/5/6 because it makes more efficient use of
+ space. For example, if you have disks of size X, then in order to get 2X
+ storage, you need 3 disks for RAID5, but 4 if you use RAID10 or RAID1+0 (or
+ This gain in usable space comes at a price: performance; RAID1/10 can be up
+ to four times faster than RAID4/5/6.
+ At the same time, however, RAID4/5/6 provide somewhat better redundancy in
+ the event of two failing disks. In a RAID10 configuration, if one disk is
+ already dead, the RAID can only survive if any of the two disks in the other
+ RAID1 array fails, but not if the second disk in the degraded RAID1 array
+ fails (see next item, 4b). A RAID6 across four disks can cope with any two
+ disks failing. However, RAID6 is noticeably slower than RAID5. RAID5 and
+ RAID4 do not differ much, but can only handle single-disk failures.
+ If you can afford the extra disks (storage *is* cheap these days), I suggest
+ RAID1/10 over RAID4/5/6. If you don't care about performance but need as
+ much space as possible, go with RAID4/5/6, but make sure to have backups.
+ Heck, make sure to have backups whatever you do.
+ Let it be said, however, that I thoroughly regret putting my primary
+ workstation on RAID5. Anything disk-intensive brings the system to its
+ knees; I will have to migrate to RAID10 at one point.
+4b. Can a 4-disk RAID10 survive two disk failures?
+ I am assuming that you are talking about a setup with two copies of each
+ block, so --layout=near2/far2/offset2:
+ In two thirds of the cases, yes, and it does not matter which layout you
+ use. When you assemble 4 disks into a RAID10, you essentially stripe a RAID0
+ across two RAID1, so the four disks A,B,C,D become two pairs: A,B and C,D.
+ If A fails, the RAID10 can only survive if the second failing disk is either
+ C or D; If B fails, your array is dead.
+ Thus, if you see a disk failing, replace it as soon as possible!
+ If you need to handle two failing disks out of a set of four, you have to
+ use RAID6, or store more than two copies of each block (see the --layout
+ option in the mdadm(8) manpage).
+ See also question 18 further down.
+ 0. it's actually (n-2)/(n-1), where n is the number of disks. I am not
+ a mathematician, see http://aput.net/~jheiss/raid10/, which gives the
+ chance of *failure* as 1/(n-1), so the chance of success is 1-1/(n-1), or
+ (n-2)/(n-1), or 2/3 in the four disk example.
+ (Thanks to Per Olofsson for clarifying this in #493577).
+5. How to convert RAID5 to RAID10?
+ To convert RAID5 to RAID10, you need a spare disk (either a spare, forth
+ disk in the array, or a new one). Then you remove the spare and one of the
+ three disks from the RAID5, create a degraded RAID10 across them, create
+ the filesystem and copy the data (or do a raw copy), then add the other two
+ disks to the new RAID10. However, mdadm cannot assemble a RAID10 with 50%
+ missing devices the way you might like it:
+ mdadm --create -l 10 -n4 -pn2 /dev/md1 /dev/sd[cd] missing missing
+ For reasons that may be answered by question 20 further down, mdadm actually
+ cares about the order of devices you give it. If you intersperse the missing
+ keywords with the physical drives, it should work:
+ mdadm --create -l 10 -n4 -pn2 /dev/md1 /dev/sdc missing /dev/sdd missing
+ or even
+ mdadm --create -l 10 -n4 -pn2 /dev/md1 missing /dev/sd[cd] missing
+ Also see item (4b) further up, and this thread:
+6. What is the difference between RAID1+0 and RAID10?
+ RAID1+0 is a form of RAID in which a RAID0 is striped across two RAID1
+ arrays. To assemble it, you create two RAID1 arrays and then create a RAID0
+ array with the two md arrays.
+ The Linux kernel provides the RAID10 level to do pretty much exactly the
+ same for you, but with greater flexibility (and somewhat improved
+ performance). While RAID1+0 makes sense with 4 disks, RAID10 can be
+ configured to work with only 3 disks. Also, RAID10 has a little less
+ overhead than RAID1+0, which has data pass the md layer twice.
+ I prefer RAID10 over RAID1+0.
+6b. What's the difference between RAID1+0 and RAID0+1?
+ In short: RAID1+0 concatenates two mirrored arrays while RAID0+1 mirrors two
+ concatenated arrays. However, the two are also often switched.
+ The linux MD driver supports RAID10, which is equivalent to the above
+ RAID1+0 definition.
+ RAID1+0/10 has a greater chance to survive two disk failures, its
+ performance suffers less when in degraded state, and it resyncs faster after
+ replacing a failed disk.
+ See http://aput.net/~jheiss/raid10/ for more details.
+7. Which RAID10 layout scheme should I use
+ RAID10 gives you the choice between three ways of laying out the blocks on
+ the disk. Assuming a simple 4 drive setup with 2 copies of each block, then
+ if A,B,C are data blocks, a,b their parts, and 1,2 denote their copies, the
+ following would be a classic RAID1+0 where 1,2 and 3,4 are RAID0 pairs
+ combined into a RAID1:
+ near=2 would be (this is the classic RAID1+0)
+ hdd1 Aa1 Ba1 Ca1
+ hdd2 Aa2 Ba2 Ca2
+ hdd3 Ab1 Bb1 Cb1
+ hdd4 Ab2 Bb2 Cb2
+ offset=2 would be
+ hdd1 Aa1 Bb2 Ca1 Db2
+ hdd2 Ab1 Aa2 Cb1 Ca2
+ hdd3 Ba1 Ab2 Da1 Cb2
+ hdd4 Bb1 Ba2 Db1 Da2
+ far=2 would be
+ hdd1 Aa1 Ca1 .... Bb2 Db2
+ hdd2 Ab1 Cb1 .... Aa2 Ca2
+ hdd3 Ba1 Da1 .... Ab2 Cb2
+ hdd4 Bb1 Db1 .... Ba2 Da2
+ Where the second set start half-way through the drives.
+ The advantage of far= is that you can easily spread a long sequential read
+ across the drives. The cost is more seeking for writes. offset= can
+ possibly get similar benefits with large enough chunk size. Neither upstream
+ nor the package maintainer have tried to understand all the implications of
+ that layout. It was added simply because it is a supported layout in DDF and
+ DDF support is a goal.
+8. (One of) my RAID arrays is busy and cannot be stopped. What gives?
+ It is perfectly normal for mdadm to report the array with the root
+ filesystem to be busy on shutdown. The reason for this is that the root
+ filesystem must be mounted to be able to stop the array (or otherwise
+ /sbin/mdadm does not exist), but to stop the array, the root filesystem
+ cannot be mounted. Catch 22. The kernel actually stops the array just before
+ halting, so it's all well.
+ If mdadm cannot stop other arrays on your system, check that these arrays
+ aren't used anymore. Common causes for busy/locked arrays are:
+ * The array contains a mounted filesystem (check the `mount' output)
+ * The array is used as a swap backend (check /proc/swaps)
+ * The array is used by the device-mapper (check with `dmsetup')
+ * LVM
+ * dm-crypt
+ * EVMS
+ * The array contains a swap partition used for suspend-to-ram
+ (check /etc/initramfs-tools/conf.d/resume)
+ * The array is used by a process (check with `lsof')
+9. Should I use RAID0 (or linear)?
+ No. Unless you know what you're doing and keep backups, or use it for data
+ that can be lost.
+9b. Why not?
+ RAID0 has zero redundancy. If you stripe a RAID0 across X disks, you
+ increase the likelyhood of complete loss of the filesystem by a factor of X.
+ The same applies to LVM by the way.
+ If you want/must used LVM or RAID0, stripe it across RAID1 arrays
+ (RAID10/RAID1+0, or LVM on RAID1), and keep backups!
+10. Can I cancel a running array check (checkarray)?
+ See the -x option in the `/usr/share/mdadm/checkarray --help` output.
+11. mdadm warns about duplicate/similar superblocks; what gives?
+ In certain configurations, especially if your last partition extends all the
+ way to the end of the disk, mdadm may display a warning like:
+ mdadm: WARNING /dev/hdc3 and /dev/hdc appear to have very similar
+ superblocks. If they are really different, please --zero the superblock on
+ one. If they are the same or overlap, please remove one from the DEVICE
+ list in mdadm.conf.
+ There are two ways to solve this:
+ (a) recreate the arrays with version-1 superblocks, which is not always an
+ option -- you cannot yet upgrade version-0 to version-1 superblocks for
+ existing arrays.
+ (b) instead of 'DEVICE partitions', list exactly those devices that are
+ components of MD arrays on your system. So in the above example:
+ - DEVICE partitions
+ + DEVICE /dev/hd[ab]* /dev/hdc
+12. mdadm -E / mkconf report different arrays with the same device
+ name / minor number. What gives?
+ In almost all cases, mdadm updates the super-minor field in an array's
+ superblock when assembling the array. It does *not* do this for RAID0
+ arrays. Thus, you may end up seeing something like this when you run
+ mdadm -E or mkconf:
+ ARRAY /dev/md0 level=raid0 num-devices=2 UUID=abcd...
+ ARRAY /dev/md0 level=raid1 num-devices=2 UUID=dcba...
+ Note how the two arrays have different UUIDs but both appear as /dev/md0.
+ The solution in this case is to explicitly tell mdadm to update the
+ superblock of the RAID0 array. Assuming that the RAID0 array in the above
+ example should really be /dev/md1:
+ mdadm --stop /dev/md1
+ mdadm --assemble --update=super-minor --uuid=abcd... /dev/md1
+ See question 2 of this FAQ, and also http://bugs.debian.org/386315 and
+ recipe #12 in README.recipes .
+13. Can a MD array be partitioned?
+ Since kernel 2.6.28, MD arrays can be partitioned like any other block
+ Prior to 2.6.28, for a MD array to be able to hold partitions, it must be
+ created as a "partitionable array", using the configuration auto=part on the
+ command line or in the configuration file, or by using the standard naming
+ scheme (md_d* or md/d*) for partitionable arrays:
+ mdadm --create --auto=yes ... /dev/md_d0 ...
+ # see mdadm(8) manpage about the values of the --auto keyword
+14. When would I partition an array?
+ This answer by Doug Ledford is shamelessly adapted from  (with
+ First, not all MD types make sense to be split up, e.g. multipath. For
+ those types, when a disk fails, the *entire* disk is considered to have
+ failed, but with different arrays you won't switch over to the next path
+ until each MD array has attempted to access the bad path. This can have
+ obvious bad consequences for certain array types that do automatic
+ failover from one port to another (you can end up getting the array in
+ a loop of switching ports repeatedly to satisfy the fact that one array
+ failed over during a path down, then the path came back up, and another
+ array stayed on the old path because it didn't send any commands during
+ the path down time period).
+ Second, convenience. Assume you have a 6 disk RAID5 array. If a disk
+ fails and you are using a partitioned MD array, then all the partitions on
+ the disk will already be handled without using that disk. No need to
+ manually fail any still active array members from other arrays.
+ Third, safety. Again with the raid5 array. If you use multiple arrays on
+ a single disk, and that disk fails, but it only failed on one array, then
+ you now need to manually fail that disk from the other arrays before
+ shutting down or hot swapping the disk. Generally speaking, that's not
+ a big deal, but people do occasionally have fat finger syndrome and this
+ is a good opportunity for someone to accidentally fail the wrong disk, and
+ when you then go to remove the disk you create a two disk failure instead
+ of one and now you are in real trouble.
+ Forth, to respond to what you wrote about independent of each other --
+ part of the reason why you partition. I would argue that's not true. If
+ your goal is to salvage as much use from a failing disk as possible, then
+ OK. But, generally speaking, people that have something of value on their
+ disks don't want to salvage any part of a failing disk, they want that
+ disk gone and replaced immediately. There simply is little to no value in
+ an already malfunctioning disk. They're too cheap and the data stored on
+ them too valuable to risk loosing something in an effort to further
+ utilize broken hardware. This of course is written with the understanding
+ that the latest MD RAID code will do read error rewrites to compensate for
+ minor disk issues, so anything that will throw a disk out of an array is
+ more than just a minor sector glitch.
+ 0. http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-raid&m=116117813315590&w=2
+15. How can I start a dirty degraded array?
+ A degraded array (e.g. a RAID5 with only two disks) that has not been
+ properly stopped cannot be assembled just like that; mdadm will refuse and
+ complain about a "dirty degraded array", for good reasons.
+ The solution might be to force-assemble it, and then to start it. Please see
+ recipes 4 and 4b of /usr/share/doc/mdadm/README.recipes.gz and make sure you
+ know what you're doing.
+16. How can I influence the speed with which an array is resynchronised?
+ For each array, the MD subsystem exports parameters governing the
+ synchronisation speed via sysfs. The values are in kB/sec.
+ /sys/block/mdX/md/sync_speed -- the current speed
+ /sys/block/mdX/md/sync_speed_max -- the maximum speed
+ /sys/block/mdX/md/sync_speed_min -- the guaranteed minimum speed
+17. When I create a new array, why does it resynchronise at first?
+ See the mdadm(8) manpage:
+ When creating a RAID5 array, mdadm will automatically create a degraded
+ array with an extra spare drive. This is because building the spare into
+ a degraded array is in general faster than resyncing the parity on
+ a non-degraded, but not clean, array. This feature can be over-ridden with
+ the --force option.
+ This also applies to RAID levels 4 and 6.
+ It does not make much sense for RAID levels 1 and 10 and can thus be
+ overridden with the --force and --assume-clean options, but it is not
+ recommended. Read the manpage.
+18. How many failed disks can a RAID10 handle?
+ (see also question 4b)
+ The following table shows how many disks you can lose and still have an
+ operational array. In some cases, you *can* lose more than the given number
+ of disks, but there is no guarantee that the array survives. Thus, the
+ following is the guaranteed number of failed disks a RAID10 array survives
+ and the maximum number of failed disks the array can (but is not guaranteed
+ to) handle, given the number of disks used and the number of data block
+ copies. Note that 2 copies means original + 1 copy. Thus, if you only have
+ one copy (the original), you cannot handle any failures.
+ 1 2 3 4 (# of copies)
+ 1 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
+ 2 0/0 1/1 1/1 1/1
+ 3 0/0 1/1 2/2 2/2
+ 4 0/0 1/2 2/2 3/3
+ 5 0/0 1/2 2/2 3/3
+ 6 0/0 1/3 2/3 3/3
+ 7 0/0 1/3 2/3 3/3
+ 8 0/0 1/4 2/3 3/4
+ (# of disks)
+ Note: I have not really verified the above information. Please don't count
+ on it. If a disk fails, replace it as soon as possible. Corrections welcome.
+19. What should I do if a disk fails?
+ Replace it as soon as possible:
+ mdadm --remove /dev/md0 /dev/sda1
+ <replace disk and start the machine>
+ mdadm --add /dev/md0 /dev/sda1
+20. So how do I find out which other disk(s) can fail without killing the
+ Did you read the previous question and its answer?
+ For cases when you have two copies of each block, the question is easily
+ answered by looking at the output of /proc/mdstat. For instance on a four
+ disk array:
+ md3 : active raid10 sdg7 sde7 sdh7 sdf7
+ you know that sde7/sdf7 form one pair and sdg7/sgh7 the other.
+ If sdh now fails, this will become
+ md3 : active raid10 sdg7 sde7 sdh7(F) sdf7
+ So now the second pair is broken; the array could take another failure in
+ the first pair, but if sdg now also fails, you're history.
+ Now go and read question 19.
+ For cases with more copies per block, it becomes more complicated. Let's
+ think of a seven disk array with three copies:
+ md5 : active raid10 sdg7 sde7 sdb7 sdf7 sda7 sdc7 sdd7
+ Each mirror now has 7/3 = 2.33 disks to it, so in order to determine groups,
+ you need to round up. Note how the disks are arranged in increasing order of
+ their indices (the number in brackes in /proc/mdstat):
+ disk: -sdd7- -sdc7- -sdf7- -sda7- -sde7- -sdb7- -sdg7-
+ group: [ one ][ two ][ three ]
+ Basically this means that after two disk failed, you need to make sure that
+ the third failed disk doesn't destroy all copies of any given block. And
+ that's not always easy as it depends on the layout chosen: whether the
+ blocks are near (same offset within each group), far (spread apart in a way
+ to maximise the mean distance), or offset (offset by size/n within each
+ I'll leave it up to you to figure things out. Now go read question 19.
+21. Why does the kernel speak of 'resync' when using checkarray?
+ Please see README.checkarray and
+ http://firstname.lastname@example.org/msg04835.html .
+ In short: it's a bug. checkarray is actually not a resync, but the kernel
+ does not distinguish between them.
+22. Can I prioritise the sync process and sync certain arrays before others?
+ Upon start, md will resynchronise any unclean arrays, starting in somewhat
+ random order. Sometimes it's desirable to sync e.g. /dev/md3 first (because
+ it's the most important), but while /dev/md1 is synchronising, /dev/md3 will
+ be DELAYED (see /proc/mdstat; only if they share the same physical
+ It is possible to delay the synchronisation via /sys:
+ echo idle >/sys/block/md1/md/sync_action
+ This will cause md1 to go idle and md to synchronise md3 (or whatever is
+ queued next; repeat the above for other devices if necessary). md will also
+ realise that md1 is still not in sync and queue it for resynchronisation,
+ so it will sync automatically when its turn has come.
+23. mdadm's init script fails because it cannot find any arrays. What gives?
+ This does not happen anymore, if no arrays present in config file, no arrays
+ will be started.
+24. What happened to mdrun? How do I replace it?
+ mdrun used to be the sledgehammer approach to assembling arrays. It has
+ accumulated several problems over the years (e.g. #354705) and thus has been
+ deprecated and removed with the 2.6.7-2 version of this package.
+ If you are still using mdrun, please ensure that you have a valid
+ /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf file (run /usr/share/mdadm/mkconf --generate to get
+ one), and run
+ mdadm --assemble --scan --auto=yes
+ instead of mdrun.
+25. Why are my arrays marked auto-read-only in /proc/mdstat?
+ Arrays are kept read-only until the first write occurs. This allows md to
+ skip lengthy resynchronisation for arrays that have not been properly shut
+ down, but which also not have changed.
+26. Why doesn't mdadm find arrays specified in the config file and causes the
+ boot to fail?
+ My boot process dies at an early stage and drops me into the busybox shell.
+ The last relevant output seems to be from mdadm and is something like
+ "/dev/md2 does not exist"
+ "No devices listed in conf file found"
+ Why does mdadm break my system?
+ Short answer: It doesn't, the underlying devices aren't yet available yet
+ when mdadm runs during the early boot process.
+ Long answer: It doesn't. but the drivers of those devices incorrectly
+ communicate to the kernel that the devices are ready, when in fact they are
+ not. I consider this a bug in those drivers. Please consider reporting it.
+ Workaround: there is nothing mdadm can or will do against this. Fortunately
+ though, initramfs provides a method, documented at
+ http://wiki.debian.org/InitramfsDebug. Please append rootdelay=10 to the
+ kernel command line and try if the boot now works.
+ -- martin f. krafft <email@example.com> Wed, 13 May 2009 09:59:53 +0200