Take the 2-minute tour ×
Ask Ubuntu is a question and answer site for Ubuntu users and developers. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I have two physical 500 GB hard disks in my Ubuntu 12.04.4 PC and they are supposed to be in a 2-disk RAID array. However, mdadm -D /dev/md0 is reporting that /dev/sda seems to be inoperative, even after a reboot:

/dev/md0:
        Version : 1.2
  Creation Time : Sat Oct 12 20:01:52 2013
     Raid Level : raid1
     Array Size : 471531328 (449.69 GiB 482.85 GB)
  Used Dev Size : 471531328 (449.69 GiB 482.85 GB)
   Raid Devices : 2
  Total Devices : 1
    Persistence : Superblock is persistent

    Update Time : Tue Jun 24 22:57:41 2014
          State : clean, degraded 
 Active Devices : 1
Working Devices : 1
 Failed Devices : 0
  Spare Devices : 0

           Name : xxxxx:0  (local to host xxxxx)
           UUID : d87b72eb:17425250:dfbf806f:60eba0fc
         Events : 4482651

    Number   Major   Minor   RaidDevice State
       0       0        0        0      removed
       1       8       17        1      active sync   /dev/sdb1

Similarly for md1 and sda5/sdb5. fdisk sees both sda and sdb. I see this in /proc/mdstat:

Personalities : [linear] [multipath] [raid0] [raid1] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [raid10] 
md1 : active raid1 sdb5[1]
      16712576 blocks super 1.2 [2/1] [_U]

md0 : active raid1 sdb1[1]
      471531328 blocks super 1.2 [2/1] [_U]

unused devices: <none>

dmesg shows this:

[    2.187963] md: linear personality registered for level -1
[    2.189389] md: multipath personality registered for level -4
[    2.190202] md: raid0 personality registered for level 0
[    2.191153] md: raid1 personality registered for level 1
[    2.329273] md: bind<sda1>
[    2.330746] md: bind<sda5>
[    2.342623] md: bind<sdb1>
[    2.343018] md: kicking non-fresh sda1 from array!
[    2.343022] md: unbind<sda1>
[    2.435343] md: raid6 personality registered for level 6
[    2.435346] md: raid5 personality registered for level 5
[    2.435348] md: raid4 personality registered for level 4
[    2.437993] md: raid10 personality registered for level 10
[    2.439651] md: export_rdev(sda1)
[    2.440324] md/raid1:md0: active with 1 out of 2 mirrors
[    2.440341] md0: detected capacity change from 0 to 482848079872
[    2.460418]  md0: unknown partition table
[    2.481119] md: bind<sdb5>
[    2.483049] md: kicking non-fresh sda5 from array!
[    2.483066] md: unbind<sda5>
[    2.486916] md: export_rdev(sda5)
[    2.487564] md/raid1:md1: active with 1 out of 2 mirrors
[    2.487578] md1: detected capacity change from 0 to 17113677824
[    2.495906]  md1: unknown partition table

What is this "non-fresh sda1" message?

I have seen this message on linuxquestions.org. Should I do what it says, i.e.:

/sbin/mdadm /dev/md0 --fail /dev/sda1 --remove /dev/sda1
/sbin/mdadm /dev/md0 --add /dev/sda1

/sbin/mdadm /dev/md1 --fail /dev/sda5 --remove /dev/sda5
/sbin/mdadm /dev/md1 --add /dev/sda5

I assume that this would not affect sdb in any way. Thanks.

share|improve this question
    
did you have an unclean shutdown that may have caused this issue? What were the circumstances in which the problem occurred? –  Jakke Jun 25 at 9:32
    
There was probably an unclean shutdown indeed. It would have been a power failure. –  sarrazip Jun 25 at 15:46
    
if you've had an unclean shutdown, this can happen. Try this link and replace your sda5 with sda1: linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-general-1/… –  Jakke Jun 25 at 16:42
    
The --remove commands failed because the devices were not found, but the --add commands apparently succeeded. mdadm now says "State : clean, degraded, recovering" and "spare rebuilding" for md0, and "State : clean, degraded, resyncing (DELAYED)" and "spare rebuilding" for md1. I guess the "delayed" means sda5 will be recovered when sda1 is done. Thanks. –  sarrazip Jun 25 at 16:58
    
It turns out that root had been getting mail for some time from "mdadm monitoring" about having detected a "DegradedArray event". I was not getting that mail in my regular account, because I had not redirected root's mail to it. I fixed that using /etc/aliases and the newaliases command. –  sarrazip Jun 26 at 1:05

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.