The space is degraded error after changing drive.


Recommended Posts

If anyone could help me out it would be much appreciated.

 

A couple of months back just after completing my build, I did something stupid.

I remember taking one of my drives out of the server while it was powered on to swap the order of the drives in the hotswap bays (I don't know why I did this while it was powered on) and after I realised my stupidity I then swapped them back when it was shut down.

After this it showed one of my 2 Tb drives as faulty so I replaced it with a 6 Tb but ever since I have had the same degraded error.

 

"The space is degraded. We suggest you replace the failing hard disks with healthy ones for repair (The disk size is equal or bigger than "1862 GB".) Please refer to the status field in Disk Info below to find out the failing hard disks.

 

All drives are showing as healthy.

 

Can anyone help me out without the need to rebuild? ( I cannot wipe and restore as I do not have enough spare drives to backup)

 

Server1> fdisk -l

fdisk: device has more than 2^32 sectors, can't use all of them

 

Disk /dev/sde: 2199.0 GB, 2199023255040 bytes

255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 267349 cylinders

Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes

 

Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System

/dev/sde1 1 267350 2147483647+ ee EFI GPT

fdisk: device has more than 2^32 sectors, can't use all of them

 

Disk /dev/sdg: 2199.0 GB, 2199023255040 bytes

255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 267349 cylinders

Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes

 

Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System

/dev/sdg1 1 267350 2147483647+ ee EFI GPT

fdisk: device has more than 2^32 sectors, can't use all of them

 

Disk /dev/sdh: 2199.0 GB, 2199023255040 bytes

255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 267349 cylinders

Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes

 

Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System

/dev/sdh1 1 267350 2147483647+ ee EFI GPT

fdisk: device has more than 2^32 sectors, can't use all of them

 

Disk /dev/sdi: 2199.0 GB, 2199023255040 bytes

255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 267349 cylinders

Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes

 

Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System

/dev/sdi1 1 267350 2147483647+ ee EFI GPT

fdisk: device has more than 2^32 sectors, can't use all of them

 

Disk /dev/sdj: 2199.0 GB, 2199023255040 bytes

255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 267349 cylinders

Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes

 

Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System

/dev/sdj1 1 267350 2147483647+ ee EFI GPT

fdisk: device has more than 2^32 sectors, can't use all of them

 

Disk /dev/sdl: 2199.0 GB, 2199023255040 bytes

255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 267349 cylinders

Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes

 

Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System

/dev/sdl1 1 267350 2147483647+ ee EFI GPT

fdisk: device has more than 2^32 sectors, can't use all of them

 

Disk /dev/sdk: 2199.0 GB, 2199023255040 bytes

255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 267349 cylinders

Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes

 

Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System

/dev/sdk1 1 267350 2147483647+ ee EFI GPT

fdisk: device has more than 2^32 sectors, can't use all of them

 

Disk /dev/sdf: 2199.0 GB, 2199023255040 bytes

255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 267349 cylinders

Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes

 

Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System

/dev/sdf1 1 267350 2147483647+ ee EFI GPT

fdisk: device has more than 2^32 sectors, can't use all of them

 

Disk /dev/sda: 2199.0 GB, 2199023255040 bytes

255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 267349 cylinders

Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes

 

Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System

/dev/sda1 1 267350 2147483647+ ee EFI GPT

 

Disk /dev/sdc: 1000.2 GB, 1000204886016 bytes

255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 121601 cylinders

Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes

 

Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System

/dev/sdc1 1 121602 976759808 7 HPFS/NTFS

 

Disk /dev/sdb: 1000.2 GB, 1000204886016 bytes

255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 121601 cylinders

Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes

 

Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System

/dev/sdb1 1 121602 976759808 7 HPFS/NTFS

 

Disk /dev/sdd: 2000.3 GB, 2000398934016 bytes

255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 243201 cylinders

Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes

 

Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System

/dev/sdd1 1 311 2490240 fd Linux raid autodetect

Partition 1 does not end on cylinder boundary

/dev/sdd2 311 572 2097152 fd Linux raid autodetect

Partition 2 does not end on cylinder boundary

/dev/sdd3 588 243201 1948788912 f Win95 Ext'd (LBA)

/dev/sdd5 589 121589 971932480 fd Linux raid autodetect

/dev/sdd6 121590 243189 976743952 fd Linux raid autodetect

 

Disk /dev/sdu: 62.5 GB, 62518853632 bytes

4 heads, 32 sectors/track, 953962 cylinders

Units = cylinders of 128 * 512 = 65536 bytes

 

Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System

/dev/sdu1 * 1 384 24544+ e Win95 FAT16 (LBA)

 

 

 

 

Server1> cat /proc/mdstat

Personalities : [linear] [raid0] [raid1] [raid10] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4]

md4 : active raid6 sdf6[0] sdi6[10] sde6[9] sda6[6] sdl6[7] sdj6[5] sdk6[4] sdh6[3] sdg6[2] sdd6[1]

8790686208 blocks super 1.2 level 6, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [11/10] [uUUUUUUUU_U]

 

md2 : active raid6 sdj8[0] sdi8[4] sdl8[3] sda8[2] sdk8[1]

8790740736 blocks super 1.2 level 6, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [5/5] [uUUUU]

 

md5 : active raid6 sdf7[0] sdi7[8] sde7[7] sda7[5] sdl7[6] sdj7[4] sdk7[3] sdh7[2] sdg7[1]

6837200384 blocks super 1.2 level 6, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [9/9] [uUUUUUUUU]

 

md3 : active raid6 sdf5[0] sde5[10] sda5[7] sdl5[8] sdj5[6] sdk5[5] sdh5[4] sdg5[3] sdi5[11] sdd5[1]

8747383104 blocks super 1.2 level 6, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [11/10] [uUUUUUUUUU_]

 

md1 : active raid1 sda2[0] sdd2[6] sde2[3] sdf2[7] sdg2[5] sdh2[4] sdi2[1] sdj2[8] sdk2[9] sdl2[10]

2097088 blocks [12/10] [uU_UUUUUUUU_]

 

md0 : active raid1 sda1[0] sdd1[8] sde1[10] sdf1[2] sdg1[6] sdh1[5] sdi1[7] sdj1[3] sdk1[4] sdl1[1]

2490176 blocks [12/10] [uUUUUUUUU_U_]

 

unused devices:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

is it possible that a 6tb drive is not supported by your controller, so its defaulting to a lower value because it cant read beyond the drive parameters?

I remember a few years back when large drives started appearing and would only show up on some controllers as a lower value, 1tb showing as 640gb for example because that was the CHS limit based on binary/hex and 8/16/32 bits etc

could you try a 2 or 3 tb drive (its asking for a 2tb minimum)

Link to post
Share on other sites
is it possible that a 6tb drive is not supported by your controller, so its defaulting to a lower value because it cant read beyond the drive parameters?

I remember a few years back when large drives started appearing and would only show up on some controllers as a lower value, 1tb showing as 640gb for example because that was the CHS limit based on binary/hex and 8/16/32 bits etc

could you try a 2 or 3 tb drive (its asking for a 2tb minimum)

 

I agree this is most likely the issue here.

 

most older controllers can't read beyond 2TB for example

 

then even the not so old PCI-SATA2 controllers some maxes out at 3TB or 4 TB

 

the 6TB and 8TB drives are fairly "new" you'll probably need a newer PCI-e-SATA3 controller with newest firmware to read them properly.

 

Also! very important, now there are these new HDD called ARCHIVES! drive from Seagate, and WD has similar ones, that they don't work like normal HDDs, if you purchased these Archive version of HDDs, they are not going to work well with any known OS. Those drivers were developed for Data Centers and Programmers to write directly to the cluster location.

Not something our Average Win OS, Linux OS do as of yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Can someone please help me?

Have You tried running smart checks on the drives? Sometimes fake errors get cleared...

 

Inviato dal mio Nexus 10 utilizzando Tapatalk

 

I have tried this and the error still shows.

Also quick check runs daily and full check weekly without any failures.

 

Thanks anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
is it possible that a 6tb drive is not supported by your controller, so its defaulting to a lower value because it cant read beyond the drive parameters?

I remember a few years back when large drives started appearing and would only show up on some controllers as a lower value, 1tb showing as 640gb for example because that was the CHS limit based on binary/hex and 8/16/32 bits etc

could you try a 2 or 3 tb drive (its asking for a 2tb minimum)

 

From what I have seen, all my 6tb drives have shown fine.

 

Capture.jpg

 

Capture.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
is it possible that a 6tb drive is not supported by your controller, so its defaulting to a lower value because it cant read beyond the drive parameters?

I remember a few years back when large drives started appearing and would only show up on some controllers as a lower value, 1tb showing as 640gb for example because that was the CHS limit based on binary/hex and 8/16/32 bits etc

could you try a 2 or 3 tb drive (its asking for a 2tb minimum)

 

I agree this is most likely the issue here.

 

most older controllers can't read beyond 2TB for example

 

then even the not so old PCI-SATA2 controllers some maxes out at 3TB or 4 TB

 

the 6TB and 8TB drives are fairly "new" you'll probably need a newer PCI-e-SATA3 controller with newest firmware to read them properly.

 

Also! very important, now there are these new HDD called ARCHIVES! drive from Seagate, and WD has similar ones, that they don't work like normal HDDs, if you purchased these Archive version of HDDs, they are not going to work well with any known OS. Those drivers were developed for Data Centers and Programmers to write directly to the cluster location.

Not something our Average Win OS, Linux OS do as of yet.

 

I have attached a couple of images in the previous reply.

 

The 6tb drives are WD Red's and the following are the hardware parts in the server.

 

LSI 9211-4i SAS/SATA RAID - 4-port

Chenbro CK23601 - 36 Port SAS Expander

Asus B85m-g Lga1150 Matx USB 3.0 32gb Ddr3 6 X Sata 6gb

Intel 4th Generation Core i5 (4460) 3.2GHz Quad Core Processor 6MB L3 Cache (Boxed)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm running out of ideas on this :sad:

Assuming your original disk group was 10 drives and after the rebuild all are showing healthy, I can't think why its reporting this.

You could try installing a 2tb disk in place of one of the 1tb 'unallocated' and try a repair, see what happens.

Link to post
Share on other sites