RAID 5 recovery

Hi guys.
I have a 7 Disk RAID 5 array that was accidentally deleted in the RAID admin. Two of the disks were not inserted when the deletion occurred. Now those two disks appear as part of an unknown array, and the rest as spares. Is there a way to put the array back together? I am not opposed to putting each disk into a computer and manually editing the partition table or what ever associates the disk with an array.
Thanks,
Bill

There is track information written to the disks. However, it's not user accessible from the RAID. You would have to pull all the drives from the carriers and manually write the info to the drives via some mechanism. And this would require you to know the format of the data.
The only folks who know this information and how to do it are Apple engineering, and data recovery services, to my knowledge. You could try AppleCare and see if they can help -- it's doubtful though. Do you have a backup? A bit late now to remind you that RAID is not a backup

Similar Messages

RAID 1 recovery... stuck!

Hi folks - I installed 2 160g SATA drives (WD ones) a while back and configured them as RAID 1. They've been working away fine for quite a while, but today the machine froze a couple of times and then finally bluescreened on restart - the RAID bios thingy said that the RAID was critical and one of the drives had failed.
What do I do now? It didn't tell me which one - so how do I find out? (I presume it only knows that they are not matching, not which one is corrupted). I was thinkinging I could disconnect each one at a time and do a chkdsk from the recovery console, but It can't see any disks at all...
Luckily I have my laptop, and have been googling, but although there is endless info on setting up RAID, I can't find any information on one to do when it goes wrong....!
Any pointers would be invaluable and v much appreciated...
Thanks, theWoosh
KT400 Ultra motherboard w onboard SATA RAI controller
etc. (cant tell u at the moment!)

Well - the WD diagnostics software fixed some errors on one of the SATA disks (Im not quite sure which one - it said it was EC10 (as opposed to EC00 which tested fine), guess this means it is the second disk and I should be able to figure out which one that is right(?!). Anyway, I dont really know what to do now - I have no log of what the diags did - or if there is a physical error on the disk...
I'm sure there is no problem in theory with rebuilding the array - it is a RAID 1 mirror (and was setup this way for precisely this sort of situation) so the non-faulty drive should have the data intact, Im just a little unclear how to go about it..
I could try to rebuild the RAID array - I thought I could zero the drive that has had a problem (do I need to do this? or can I just use it as it is? Can I use this disk at all, or do I need to replace it?) and then do a rebuild, but I'm slightly worried about doing this (since this disk is at least a partial backup, and Im not sure which disk is which!).
Or I could wait till later when my replacement disk arrives and switch the dodgy one out b4 rebuilding.....
I think I need 2 take a closer look at this b4 doing anything....

Promise 378 - RAID 0 - Recovery settings required

I have a K8T NEO FISR motherboard with two Samsung 80gb SATA drives connected in RAID 0. Things were going along fine for the last several months and suddenly a couple of days ago, something went wrong and one of my drives dropped out of the array. Yes, it was stupid not having a current back-up of my hard drive, but regardless I am now trying to recover my files. They seem to be there, and a couple of different programs I'm playing with seem to be able to recover the files but they are corrupted. In looking at the files, especially JPG's it seems like the way the files are meshed is incorrect, and so I'm trying to find the default settings for the Promise 378 RAID 0 configuration.
I'm trying a program called File Scavenger and its asking for:
First Sector for both drives
Striping Block Size - I believe this is 128kb per the information displayed in the Promise 378 raid configuration
Data Blocks per Parity Group
Boot Sector - defaults to 319 but not sure if this is correct
From the way the pictures look, I think perhaps the setting that is causing me the most trouble is the First Sector location for the second drive... but being able to confirm all settings would be rather nice also.
Any help or suggestions are appreciated,
Cheers,
Arba

Yep - both drives got the long version of the Seagate Disk Tools test, and both passed without a hitch. That's five hours of my life I'll never get back.
Anyway - the Promise TX2300 RAID card arrived yesterday, so I disabled the motherboard Promise in the BIOS, installed the card in a spare PCI slot (my last one!), and connected the drives. It turns out that this card also wont recognise the cards at 3 Mb/s, but they worked instantly when the drive jumper was replaced to limit them to 1.5 Mb/s. Partitioned and formatted I now have a working 2 x 500 Gb RAID 1, though I'm going to leave it a week before I move anything important onto it.... er, 'just in case'.
To summarise, the motherboard Promise and this new Promise RAID card use different silicon so their implementations could be different, but neither would talk to the drives at 3 Mb/s. I strongly suspect the Seagate drives have a SATA2 problem. I could easily be wrong of course, but I'm off to the Seagate forums now to try and pin it down.
Dufflepod.

RAID 0 Recovery possible?

I have a colleague running a older Xserve RAID for graphics storage. Despite the fact that there was no need for the bitrate delivered by RAID 0, some doorknob over there set it up that way instead of RAID 5. They had a drive go red. On a wing and a prayer, we powered down, reseated and got green again, but the array seems to be gone. Not expecting much, we also tried a controller reset and a repair LUN map. I am pretty sure we're hosed. Just looking for anything I might not have tried (besides DriveSavers, etc).
Thanks

Hi Coriolis;
You do have backups?
After years of experience with RAID of all flavors, I feel the most important thing to do with any of them is to set up a good sound backup pocedure. It has been my experience that sooner or later it will happen that the RAID will not protect you from everything kind of failure. This is especially true of RAID 0.
Allan

RAID 1 Recovery

So, I can't really figure out how to recover a drive in a RAID 1 setup should one drive fail. I have two external drives that are setup in a RAID 1. Should one drive fail, how do I access the data from the setup? At that point can I just connect the good drive and copy the data from it or is it more complicated. I don't have the issue now but I don't want to figure out how do it should one of the drives fail one day. Also, will OS X tell me one drive failed?

Hi Dana Neibert;
I am sorry I can't answer your question about a RAID 1 because I have never used it.
You are backing up your data that is on the RAID 1 because RAID 1 is NOT a backup solution.
Allan

RAID data recovery

Hi to the Forum
Does anybody know if it is possible to recover data from a (Promise) RAID 0 array that has "lost" one of its drives?
If I re-install them on the Intel controller, will I be able to get at the data?
Can I recover the data if they are installed on the standard (non RAID) controller?
HELP..........

afraid not if you loose one drive in rais 0 its all gone

Data Recovery software

how to recovery data from damage hard disk then i found on net i got a http://www.stellarinfo.co.in/
which provide data recovery services i talked to them & they reply they have the solution of hard disk recovery, laptop data recovery, server recovery, raid data recovery i want to know that it there any problem to recover data from these company is it reliable

Tenorshare Data Recovery is a powerful
data recovery software. It not only support recovering data with Windows file system (FAT12, FAT16, FAT32, NTFS), but also Mac file system (HFS, HFS+) and Linux file system (EXT2, EXT3). Lost data due to virus attack PC, corrupted partition, drive crash,
system sabotage, etc. can be retrieved easily with it.
http://www.any-data-recovery.com/product/datarecoveryprofessional.htm

RAID 50 or SAN

I have an XServe Raid that I would like to make a single volume for all 14 drives. Before I create software RAID 0 over the 2x RAID 5 volumes I'm wondering about my upgrade path.
Can I expand any of the RAID 5 volumes once they are part of the RAID 0 array?
Am I better off buying XSan and would that make the 2 volumes appear as one leaving me in a better position to add storage to that one big volume later?
Thanks

There are file systems that allow on-line growth, though HFS+ is not among those.
You're clearly working on a budget (and aren't we all?), so you'll want to look at how you can incrementally grow most effectively; petabyte-scale storage is pretty easy to configure these days, but overbuilding can be expensive. And if you're going to grow from a four terabyte array up toward maybe a petabyte or two over time, then you're probably going to be rolling in a few small arrays over time (as rack space and I/O connections permit), and eventually rolling the smaller arrays out, and rolling additional servers and direct-attached or maybe SAN-based arrays into the configuration. (Growth is easy for a while, then you hit cable length limits and rack space and available PCIe slots and...)
The other aspect is reliability and recovery; RAID-0 across RAID-5 arrays exposes you to outages within your configuration, and RAID-5 recovery absolutely hammers your throughput. And whether you have a backup archive available, as RAID does nothing to protect you from accidental or malicious errors, nor from volume corruptions.
I'd drop the requirement for one big array and for scale-up if I could manage it and head toward scale-out, as that'll make this problem go away, and it'll avoid problems with backup windows and data volume as the individual volumes (real disks, or controller-presented virtual disks) get larger; how you can reasonably deal with rolling in and rolling out storage over time, and also how you can grow to use the segmentation slice up your load across servers; sharding your processing.
If y'all have control over the implementation of the access, then [Cassandra|http://cassandra.apache.org> atop [Hadoop|http://hadoop.apache.org>, CouchDB, or equivalent might be of interest; that's a couple of steps above the RAID-level hardware stuff, and largely disconnects you from having to deal with disks and with ever-larger RAID volumes.
RAID-0 is a tad odd here; I'd tend to look at what the I/O load is. RAID-0 is centrally for performance, and isn't used when reliability is a factor, and an Xserve serving up files tends to be limited by the speed of the network connections. By the (possibly aggregated) gigabit Ethernet links or (more commonly for remote-access sites) by the speed of the remote network links; those tend to be way below what a disk can get. (A floppy disk is probably slower, but any self-respecting hard disk drive should be vastly faster than what can be stuffed down a typical cable internet or DSL link or T1 network line; a common bottleneck will be in the comms and not in the storage array.)
Now if you're slamming I/O at your storage from a maxed-out PCIe Xserve server box, then all bets are off. RAID-0 or RAID-10 or SSD might well be very appropriate for that target.

Solaris 10 root RAID-1 support totally broken!

I have been configuring Sun Blade 1500 with two IDE drives (each on their own IDE bus) as RAID-1 for the /, swap and /export/home partitions. This has worked well and I have always been able to test the RAID-1 recovery ability of such a configuration. However I am very unhappy to report that this functionality to totally broken in Solaris 10. For example, if you disconnect the second IDE drive of the RAID and reboot, the machine kernel panics as expected. However unlikeSolaris 9, which still allows you to login for maintanence and to delete the metastat database entries for the missing drive (thus making the machine bootable without a kernel panic), under Solaris 10 the system simply restarts immediately upon the kernel panic, This makes the RAID-1 system more than just useless but actually dangerous since it now doubles the probabity that you will had a drive failure and end up with an unbootable machine. I am very glad I tested the RAID-1 recovery ability before I installed this machine. Back to Solaris 9 for me!
Jack

#device          device          mount          FS     fsck     mount     mount
#to mount     to fsck          point          type     pass     at boot     options
/dev/md/dsk/d3      /dev/md/rdsk/d3/     /devel     ufs     1     no     -
/dev/md/dsk/d6      /dev/md/rdsk/d6/     /prod     ufs     1     no     -
/dev/md/dsk/d9      /dev/md/rdsk/d9/     /export/home     ufs     1     no     -
Perhaps the problem is the mount at boot flag set to no for the /devel /prod and /export/home filesystems? If your system is up try mounting these filesystems, if that works, set the mount at boot flag to yes.
--a

Disk Utility / diskutil RAID Mirror rebuild fails: mistakenly thinks disk is too small

Has anyone else had this issue?
I've just migrated my Lion Server install to a slightly upgraded Mac Mini running Mavericks and am running into horrible trouble rebuilding my Apple RAID disk, which I established on Lion and would like to repair using Mavericks. The drives being used are the same units; the RAID got out of sync due to a power outage, and rather than wait to migrate until the old machine was done rebuilding the array like a week later, I just figured I could repair the RAID after migration.
Not so, however. Disk Utility, when I attempt to rebuild the raid using the second drive, tells me that it is too small.
When I look in diskutil, here's what it shows me:
<blockquote>
/dev/disk2
   #:                       TYPE NAME                    SIZE       IDENTIFIER
   0:      GUID_partition_scheme                        *3.0 TB     disk2
   1:                        EFI EFI                     314.6 MB   disk2s1
   2:         Apple_RAID_Offline                         3.0 TB     disk2s2
   3:                 Apple_Boot Boot OS X               134.2 MB   disk2s3
/dev/disk3
   #:                       TYPE NAME                    SIZE       IDENTIFIER
   0:      GUID_partition_scheme                        *3.0 TB     disk3
   1:                        EFI                         209.7 MB   disk3s1
   2:                 Apple_RAID                         3.0 TB     disk3s2
   3:                 Apple_Boot Boot OS X               134.2 MB   disk3s3</blockquote>
Notice that the EFI partition on disk3 -- the intact RAID slice -- is the correct size, 209.7MB or 200MiB. The EFI partition disk2, however, which was created moments earlier by Disk Utility in its failed attempt to rebuild the array, is 100MiB too many. As a result, the Apple_RAID partition is about 100MiB smaller than the one on disk2. Hence, this error.
So my question is: what the **** is going on here, and what can I do about it? Is this just a Mavericks bug, that it creates EFI partitions of the wrong size? The disks are seen as identical in diskutil. Is there anything I can do to rebuild my array?
I've considered rebuilding it on the old server, but then next time it gets messed up I'm just going to run into the same problem, as whichever slice fails will have a correctly-sized EFI partiton, and if Disk Utility insists on creating an incorrectly-sized one during the rebuild process it's just going to fail again.
Please halp! Thank you!

OK, so here is the solution for my problem
what i did was the following:
- as i wrote before, i erased the disk with command line (diskutil zeroDisk disk1), then the pending sector was gone.
- i decided to rebuild the raid in recovery mode to prevent further system crashes. so i added the previously zeroed disk1 to the degraded raid. when disk utility finished adding the disk it stalled but showed the raid ONLINE. so i decided to hard shutdown my mac mini - because it wasn't possible to restart via the interface of the recovery mode.
after staring the mac the system loaded and everything was working again properly! including disk utility still showing raid1 online.
btw, time machine was working correctly again when i deleted the .inprogress-file on the backup-disk.
maybe someone else is able to use this information - that would be great!

Iomega ix4-200d Four drives in RAID 5 Lost Data

Hi,
I've Iomega StorCenter ix4-200d with firmware version 2.1.46.30093. The unit has four 1TB drives setup as RAID 5.
I've been having intermittent issues with drive 4 and IOmega device has been automatically reconstructing the protection in last few weeks. Recently drive 1 showed similar issue and now the whole data became invisible.
After Login to the device I see this message:
4 new drives with existing data have been added to your Iomega StorCenter device.
The Iomega StorCenter device failed and some data loss may have occurred.
On the Disks page, I see the four disk and If I hover over one of the disk it display this pop help message:
Disk has been replaced with a disk containing data from another system.
On one of the page I got this message:
Disk Overwite Authorization:
A disk with existing data has been inserted.
Note that using this disk will permanently destroy all of its previous contents.
Check this box to authorize overwriting the disk.
I have not done the overwriting to avoid any data loss. The unit is out of warranty and I need data recovery.
So far I've found these options online. Just would like to know the your experience, data recovery success and $$ amount you paid for the tool / service for recovery.
a. http://www.diydatarecovery.nl/irecover.htm - $70 tool
b. http://freedatarecovery.us/ - Service
c. http://www.angeldatarecovery.com/raid5-data-recovery/ - Service
d. http://www.krollontrack.com/data-recovery/recovery-software/windows/ - $499 tool
e. http://www.freeraidrecovery.com/library/raid5-recovery.aspx - Free tool
f. https://www.runtime.org/raid.htm - $99 Tool
g. http://www.retrodata.co.uk/data-recovery-services/nas-data-recovery/iomega-data-recovery/ - Service
h. http://www.drivesaversdatarecovery.com/devices-supported/raid-data-recovery/ - Service
Please advice.

Hello svfm
As mentioned in another thread, UFS Explorer has been fairly successful, however I have not seen quite as much results from other applications. iRecover would be the next recommended option other than contacting a data recovery provider that can work with RAID systems.
LenovoEMC Contact Information is region specific. Please select the correct link then access the Contact Us at the top right:
US and Canada: https://lenovo-na-en.custhelp.com/
Latin America and Mexico: https://lenovo-la-es.custhelp.com/
EU: https://lenovo-eu-en.custhelp.com/
India/Asia Pacific: https://lenovo-ap-en.custhelp.com/
http://support.lenovoemc.com/

Z77A-GD65: Disks shown but not selectable on creating a RAID volume

Mainboard: Z77A-GD65
CPU: Intel Core i7 3770K
RAM: 2x Corsair DDR3-1600 XMS3 4GB
HDDs: 2x Seagate Barracuda SATA3 7200.12 6GB/s
Upgraded System with new MB etc. yesterday and removed the old HDD.
After enabling RAID in BIOS, I went to the RAID settings with Ctrl+I. The RAID setup displays both HDDs with correct description and storage size, but when I was trying to create a new RAID volume the "disc selection" option is not selectable unless "Recovery" is chosen as RAID level. On RAID level "Recovery" both disks are selectable but no RAID volume is created during the process. When RAID level 0 or 1 is chosen still the correct size of the potential volume is calculated by the RAID setup.
Additionally, I tried the same procedure with both "RAID hot-plug" enabled and disabled in BIOS.
The HDDs are plugged into SATA-ports 1+2. No OS installed yet.

After several unsuccessful attempts of formatting and partitioning the disks, I installed the OS. Subsequent use of the thereafter installed Intel Rapid Storage Technology (IRST) enabled me to created the RAID volume under Windows, which is now additionally shown on the IRST page after the POST screen.
So the RAID volume creation worked, but it still takes me wonder why I haven't been able to do this after the POST screen in the first place .
Well, problem still kind of solved.

Mid 2010 Mac Pro will not install 10.7.3 update

Hi all,
My Mac Pro (Mid 2010) will not install the 10.7.3 combo update. I use the software update tool to download the update, it goes to reboot. It starts loading the update in and at the very end it will tell me none of the updates can be installed because an unknown error has occurred. I have tried multiple times and had the same result. It also will not install any other updates such as the Airport Utility and iTunes update. This is a work computer so I think it is important to have all the updates installed on it.

Then the problem is:
You have Apple Pro RAID controller
A software RAID
Lion Recovery should be on one of your hard drives, not RAID.
Do a clean install of Lion on one of the other hard drives you have
Anything else we should know about your setup? controllers do matter.

Creating a 100TB+ Storage Volume.

Hi,
I have to create a 100TB+ Storage center for several Mac Pro connected into a fibre network. I want to use some Promise Vtrak products.
Is it possible to use 4x Promise Vtrak 32GB to create one unique raid 5 100TB+ volume? How can I interconnect the 4 peripherals? With a special raid card? or an XServe with fibre channel card?
I am beginner with this situation but I have no choice to perform a configuration like that.
Thanks for your help.
Best regards

Not an answer follows.
At that scale of storage, you may well hit the inevitability of a secondary spindle failure during the overhead of the RAID-5 recovery from the primary spindle failure. Run the bit error rates per the CMU and Google papers of empirical MTBF for disks, and see where you get. (In general, I'd pick a different RAID, as RAID-5 was really good for dinky and expensive disks, but that recovery processing is a massive I/O hit and suffers an increasing risk of secondary failures as the volumes scale upwards.)
Various sites I deal with operating at this scale also have the RAID and all of the block-level processing entirely out at the controller, and not at the host. That includes either journaling, archival processing, and related. (And there exist storage controllers - not sufficiently familiar with the Promise stuff here to tell you if that product features sufficient virtualization - that present the host with virtualized storage, where the SAN doesn't need to allocate the storage to the virtual disk that the host sees until the host actually needs it. That allows the host OS or application to "think" that there's a petabyte or so, but to allow the disk spindles to be added as capacity requirements track.)
Some of the SAN controllers can also stripe that data across far more spindles than can RAID-5, which means you'll have both better use of your spindles, and you'll avoid the transfer limits of the spindles; the fastest you can push an n-volume RAID-5 is the aggregate of those n spindles, where a controller-based non-RAID-5 might be able to get some slice of most or all of your spindles, and you'll be able to use slices across more (or all) of your disk spindles.
Another limit you'll hit with SAN is how fast you can push the FC SAN connections, and the only way around that is more fibre, and spreading your spindles across controllers and fibres.
Why do I mention this? How long will it take to recover that 100 TB array from your archive, or how long to create a full archive of that volume if you need to quiesce that spindle to get a good backup (and do you have archival tools that read that disk array sequentially or can you "stripe" it out?). If you're running RAID-5 with all that, you have the further limit of how fast you can push those 'n' spindles behind that array.
And yes, you might get SSDs going silly-fast here, but run the bandwidth calculations to see if your outboard or FC HBA controllers can go that fast or if you'll hit a performance wall somewhere. But then I've been dealing with some 2 Gb FC HBAs, and they're, um, slow. SSDs work best in-board, and you need sufficiently silly-fast connections to those to make that approach technically viable. (You don't want to be the guy that paid for a metric boat-load of fast SSDs and then mounted them behind 1 Gb FC HBAs.)
Other approaches involve moving to CouchDB or such databases, but that depends on what your data access patterns look like; you're at the hardware level, and sometimes, um, "adjusting" the application design can help massively.

General question about data recovery from raid on windows server !

hi,
I like to buy data recovery software for windows server to recover data with any raid( or whitout raid
so the company tells me you should be sure the Raid can be recognized correctly as local disk drive first, otherwise, our product wil not help you. so if I want to recover data of my customers which has windows server with any raid form ,how
I can make this server harddisks(which is raid 1,5,6 ect)recognized coorectly as local disk drive.
thanks
johan
h.david

I have myself NAS which is connected to my computer through router.
I am started smal bussines ,and I want to use also data recovery service for deleted documents,photo's,formatted drives ect.for my customers .things that accidantally errased from raid or non raid
so I found some data recovery softwares
1-stellarphoenix data recover,which has remote acces and netwerk acces.
2--ease use data recovery software. I liked this second software,but they telling me like this,
you should be sure the Raid can be recognized correctly as local disk drive first, otherwise, our product wil not help you.
I understand the both situations you telling me.thanks
but my question is can I not run data recovery software from bootable usb stick on the smal servers like essential with raid to recover data in case of any problems that caused data loose.
I know if I install data recovery software on the server to scan it ,it wil rewrite some places on harddisk and that is not wise.
h.david

RAID 5 recovery

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for