If a RAID5 system experiences a URE during rebuild, is all the data lost? The 2019 Stack...

Geography at the pixel level

What could be the right powersource for 15 seconds lifespan disposable giant chainsaw?

Is Cinnamon a desktop environment or a window manager? (Or both?)

Why couldn't they take pictures of a closer black hole?

Why not take a picture of a closer black hole?

A word that means fill it to the required quantity

What do these terms in Caesar's Gallic Wars mean?

Pokemon Turn Based battle (Python)

Does HR tell a hiring manager about salary negotiations?

Loose spokes after only a few rides

Why did Peik say, "I'm not an animal"?

How to add class in ko template in magento2

Can an undergraduate be advised by a professor who is very far away?

Why isn't the circumferential light around the M87 black hole's event horizon symmetric?

Deal with toxic manager when you can't quit

Falsification in Math vs Science

"as much details as you can remember"

Why didn't the Event Horizon Telescope team mention Sagittarius A*?

Accepted by European university, rejected by all American ones I applied to? Possible reasons?

What is the meaning of Triage in Cybersec world?

Getting crown tickets for Statue of Liberty

Worn-tile Scrabble

How to type this arrow in math mode?

Short story: man watches girlfriend's spaceship entering a 'black hole' (?) forever



If a RAID5 system experiences a URE during rebuild, is all the data lost?



The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are Inwhat is exactly an URE?Why does a URE cause loss of array during RAID 5 rebuild?Dell SAS 5/ir - secondary disk update “data will be lost!” - will all data, or just secondary disk?RAID5 Array issues - copy data or replace drive firstZFS/Btrfs/LVM2-like storage with advanced features on Linux?Failed volumes on RAID - how to handle?data lost with RAID5 on proliant DL360 when drives failWhat are the performance implications of running VMs on a ZFS host?Would this RAID 5 solution work?What are the consequences of a hot-spare dying during an array rebuild?Why would a RAID5 rebuild fail?How to 're-balance' data in zfs? (Make sure the data is spread amongst all striped mirrors)





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;
}







19















I understand the argument regarding larger drives' increased likelihood of experiencing a URE during a rebuild, however I'm not sure what the actual implications are for this. This answer says that the entire rebuild fails, but does this mean that all the data is inaccessible? Why would that be? Surely a single URE from a single sector on the drive would only impact the data related to a few files, at most. Wouldn't the array still be rebuilt, just with some minor corruption to a few files?



(I'm specifically interested in ZFS's implementation of RAID5 here, but the logic seems the same for any RAID5 implementation.)










share|improve this question


















  • 1





    In general, when "likelihood of experiencing a URE during a rebuild" is discussed in the context of RAID5 risks, the implied assumption is that an earlier corruption has already occurred to cause the rebuild to be necessary. In other words, the "URE during rebuild" is the second URE, and indeed ALL data will be lost.

    – Colt
    Oct 28 '18 at 10:18






  • 1





    @Colt - I understand that's the implication, but what I don't understand is why a single URE (which, in the analysis of why RAID5 isn't recommended, seems to refer to a bad sector) would mean that all the data would be lost. In general, if I have lost 1 drive of a RAID5 array then I still have all the data. If I additionally lose a single sector from any of the remaining drives then it is possible that I lost data which was stored in that sector, but if that sector was (for example) free space then I don't care, and if that sector did have data on it then it may only impact a few files.

    – process91
    Oct 28 '18 at 13:54











  • @Colt - Based on the answers below, it seems like failing to rebuild the array in the presense of a single URE was a choice made by hardware RAID manufacturers. In my opinion, this was the wrong choice, but thankfully it seems ZFS does it differently.

    – process91
    Oct 28 '18 at 13:55













  • See @shodanshok's answer for the process. As to the why, RAID is for providing continuity of access to reliable data for other processes, applications, etc., and is not about backup. The reason that many (most?) hardware controllers abort once the URE occurs in rebuild is that the RAID can no longer do what it is supposed to do. At this point, the backups need to be used to have reliable data. Another way to use RAID is to not do any rebuild at all, but just use RAID to control timing of recovery from backup. Also, it allows time to make the final backup before recovery.

    – Colt
    Oct 28 '18 at 15:37













  • Note that “ZFS’ implementation of RAID5” is called “raidz” or “zraid” and is different from hardware RAID5. You’ll typically get better answers about “ZFS RAID5” asking about “raidz”

    – Josh
    Oct 28 '18 at 15:52




















19















I understand the argument regarding larger drives' increased likelihood of experiencing a URE during a rebuild, however I'm not sure what the actual implications are for this. This answer says that the entire rebuild fails, but does this mean that all the data is inaccessible? Why would that be? Surely a single URE from a single sector on the drive would only impact the data related to a few files, at most. Wouldn't the array still be rebuilt, just with some minor corruption to a few files?



(I'm specifically interested in ZFS's implementation of RAID5 here, but the logic seems the same for any RAID5 implementation.)










share|improve this question


















  • 1





    In general, when "likelihood of experiencing a URE during a rebuild" is discussed in the context of RAID5 risks, the implied assumption is that an earlier corruption has already occurred to cause the rebuild to be necessary. In other words, the "URE during rebuild" is the second URE, and indeed ALL data will be lost.

    – Colt
    Oct 28 '18 at 10:18






  • 1





    @Colt - I understand that's the implication, but what I don't understand is why a single URE (which, in the analysis of why RAID5 isn't recommended, seems to refer to a bad sector) would mean that all the data would be lost. In general, if I have lost 1 drive of a RAID5 array then I still have all the data. If I additionally lose a single sector from any of the remaining drives then it is possible that I lost data which was stored in that sector, but if that sector was (for example) free space then I don't care, and if that sector did have data on it then it may only impact a few files.

    – process91
    Oct 28 '18 at 13:54











  • @Colt - Based on the answers below, it seems like failing to rebuild the array in the presense of a single URE was a choice made by hardware RAID manufacturers. In my opinion, this was the wrong choice, but thankfully it seems ZFS does it differently.

    – process91
    Oct 28 '18 at 13:55













  • See @shodanshok's answer for the process. As to the why, RAID is for providing continuity of access to reliable data for other processes, applications, etc., and is not about backup. The reason that many (most?) hardware controllers abort once the URE occurs in rebuild is that the RAID can no longer do what it is supposed to do. At this point, the backups need to be used to have reliable data. Another way to use RAID is to not do any rebuild at all, but just use RAID to control timing of recovery from backup. Also, it allows time to make the final backup before recovery.

    – Colt
    Oct 28 '18 at 15:37













  • Note that “ZFS’ implementation of RAID5” is called “raidz” or “zraid” and is different from hardware RAID5. You’ll typically get better answers about “ZFS RAID5” asking about “raidz”

    – Josh
    Oct 28 '18 at 15:52
















19












19








19


2






I understand the argument regarding larger drives' increased likelihood of experiencing a URE during a rebuild, however I'm not sure what the actual implications are for this. This answer says that the entire rebuild fails, but does this mean that all the data is inaccessible? Why would that be? Surely a single URE from a single sector on the drive would only impact the data related to a few files, at most. Wouldn't the array still be rebuilt, just with some minor corruption to a few files?



(I'm specifically interested in ZFS's implementation of RAID5 here, but the logic seems the same for any RAID5 implementation.)










share|improve this question














I understand the argument regarding larger drives' increased likelihood of experiencing a URE during a rebuild, however I'm not sure what the actual implications are for this. This answer says that the entire rebuild fails, but does this mean that all the data is inaccessible? Why would that be? Surely a single URE from a single sector on the drive would only impact the data related to a few files, at most. Wouldn't the array still be rebuilt, just with some minor corruption to a few files?



(I'm specifically interested in ZFS's implementation of RAID5 here, but the logic seems the same for any RAID5 implementation.)







raid zfs zfsonlinux






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Oct 28 '18 at 2:02









process91process91

20117




20117








  • 1





    In general, when "likelihood of experiencing a URE during a rebuild" is discussed in the context of RAID5 risks, the implied assumption is that an earlier corruption has already occurred to cause the rebuild to be necessary. In other words, the "URE during rebuild" is the second URE, and indeed ALL data will be lost.

    – Colt
    Oct 28 '18 at 10:18






  • 1





    @Colt - I understand that's the implication, but what I don't understand is why a single URE (which, in the analysis of why RAID5 isn't recommended, seems to refer to a bad sector) would mean that all the data would be lost. In general, if I have lost 1 drive of a RAID5 array then I still have all the data. If I additionally lose a single sector from any of the remaining drives then it is possible that I lost data which was stored in that sector, but if that sector was (for example) free space then I don't care, and if that sector did have data on it then it may only impact a few files.

    – process91
    Oct 28 '18 at 13:54











  • @Colt - Based on the answers below, it seems like failing to rebuild the array in the presense of a single URE was a choice made by hardware RAID manufacturers. In my opinion, this was the wrong choice, but thankfully it seems ZFS does it differently.

    – process91
    Oct 28 '18 at 13:55













  • See @shodanshok's answer for the process. As to the why, RAID is for providing continuity of access to reliable data for other processes, applications, etc., and is not about backup. The reason that many (most?) hardware controllers abort once the URE occurs in rebuild is that the RAID can no longer do what it is supposed to do. At this point, the backups need to be used to have reliable data. Another way to use RAID is to not do any rebuild at all, but just use RAID to control timing of recovery from backup. Also, it allows time to make the final backup before recovery.

    – Colt
    Oct 28 '18 at 15:37













  • Note that “ZFS’ implementation of RAID5” is called “raidz” or “zraid” and is different from hardware RAID5. You’ll typically get better answers about “ZFS RAID5” asking about “raidz”

    – Josh
    Oct 28 '18 at 15:52
















  • 1





    In general, when "likelihood of experiencing a URE during a rebuild" is discussed in the context of RAID5 risks, the implied assumption is that an earlier corruption has already occurred to cause the rebuild to be necessary. In other words, the "URE during rebuild" is the second URE, and indeed ALL data will be lost.

    – Colt
    Oct 28 '18 at 10:18






  • 1





    @Colt - I understand that's the implication, but what I don't understand is why a single URE (which, in the analysis of why RAID5 isn't recommended, seems to refer to a bad sector) would mean that all the data would be lost. In general, if I have lost 1 drive of a RAID5 array then I still have all the data. If I additionally lose a single sector from any of the remaining drives then it is possible that I lost data which was stored in that sector, but if that sector was (for example) free space then I don't care, and if that sector did have data on it then it may only impact a few files.

    – process91
    Oct 28 '18 at 13:54











  • @Colt - Based on the answers below, it seems like failing to rebuild the array in the presense of a single URE was a choice made by hardware RAID manufacturers. In my opinion, this was the wrong choice, but thankfully it seems ZFS does it differently.

    – process91
    Oct 28 '18 at 13:55













  • See @shodanshok's answer for the process. As to the why, RAID is for providing continuity of access to reliable data for other processes, applications, etc., and is not about backup. The reason that many (most?) hardware controllers abort once the URE occurs in rebuild is that the RAID can no longer do what it is supposed to do. At this point, the backups need to be used to have reliable data. Another way to use RAID is to not do any rebuild at all, but just use RAID to control timing of recovery from backup. Also, it allows time to make the final backup before recovery.

    – Colt
    Oct 28 '18 at 15:37













  • Note that “ZFS’ implementation of RAID5” is called “raidz” or “zraid” and is different from hardware RAID5. You’ll typically get better answers about “ZFS RAID5” asking about “raidz”

    – Josh
    Oct 28 '18 at 15:52










1




1





In general, when "likelihood of experiencing a URE during a rebuild" is discussed in the context of RAID5 risks, the implied assumption is that an earlier corruption has already occurred to cause the rebuild to be necessary. In other words, the "URE during rebuild" is the second URE, and indeed ALL data will be lost.

– Colt
Oct 28 '18 at 10:18





In general, when "likelihood of experiencing a URE during a rebuild" is discussed in the context of RAID5 risks, the implied assumption is that an earlier corruption has already occurred to cause the rebuild to be necessary. In other words, the "URE during rebuild" is the second URE, and indeed ALL data will be lost.

– Colt
Oct 28 '18 at 10:18




1




1





@Colt - I understand that's the implication, but what I don't understand is why a single URE (which, in the analysis of why RAID5 isn't recommended, seems to refer to a bad sector) would mean that all the data would be lost. In general, if I have lost 1 drive of a RAID5 array then I still have all the data. If I additionally lose a single sector from any of the remaining drives then it is possible that I lost data which was stored in that sector, but if that sector was (for example) free space then I don't care, and if that sector did have data on it then it may only impact a few files.

– process91
Oct 28 '18 at 13:54





@Colt - I understand that's the implication, but what I don't understand is why a single URE (which, in the analysis of why RAID5 isn't recommended, seems to refer to a bad sector) would mean that all the data would be lost. In general, if I have lost 1 drive of a RAID5 array then I still have all the data. If I additionally lose a single sector from any of the remaining drives then it is possible that I lost data which was stored in that sector, but if that sector was (for example) free space then I don't care, and if that sector did have data on it then it may only impact a few files.

– process91
Oct 28 '18 at 13:54













@Colt - Based on the answers below, it seems like failing to rebuild the array in the presense of a single URE was a choice made by hardware RAID manufacturers. In my opinion, this was the wrong choice, but thankfully it seems ZFS does it differently.

– process91
Oct 28 '18 at 13:55







@Colt - Based on the answers below, it seems like failing to rebuild the array in the presense of a single URE was a choice made by hardware RAID manufacturers. In my opinion, this was the wrong choice, but thankfully it seems ZFS does it differently.

– process91
Oct 28 '18 at 13:55















See @shodanshok's answer for the process. As to the why, RAID is for providing continuity of access to reliable data for other processes, applications, etc., and is not about backup. The reason that many (most?) hardware controllers abort once the URE occurs in rebuild is that the RAID can no longer do what it is supposed to do. At this point, the backups need to be used to have reliable data. Another way to use RAID is to not do any rebuild at all, but just use RAID to control timing of recovery from backup. Also, it allows time to make the final backup before recovery.

– Colt
Oct 28 '18 at 15:37







See @shodanshok's answer for the process. As to the why, RAID is for providing continuity of access to reliable data for other processes, applications, etc., and is not about backup. The reason that many (most?) hardware controllers abort once the URE occurs in rebuild is that the RAID can no longer do what it is supposed to do. At this point, the backups need to be used to have reliable data. Another way to use RAID is to not do any rebuild at all, but just use RAID to control timing of recovery from backup. Also, it allows time to make the final backup before recovery.

– Colt
Oct 28 '18 at 15:37















Note that “ZFS’ implementation of RAID5” is called “raidz” or “zraid” and is different from hardware RAID5. You’ll typically get better answers about “ZFS RAID5” asking about “raidz”

– Josh
Oct 28 '18 at 15:52







Note that “ZFS’ implementation of RAID5” is called “raidz” or “zraid” and is different from hardware RAID5. You’ll typically get better answers about “ZFS RAID5” asking about “raidz”

– Josh
Oct 28 '18 at 15:52












4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















21














It really depends on the specific RAID implementation:




  • most hardware RAID will abort the reconstruction and some will also mark the array as failed, bringing it down. The rationale is that if an URE happens during a RAID5 rebuild it means some data are lost, so it is better to completely stop the array rather that risking silent data corruption. Note: some hardware RAID (mainly LSI based) will instead puncture the array, allowing the rebuild to proceed while marking the affected sector as unreadable (similar to how Linux software RAID behaves).


  • linux software RAID can be instructed to a) stop the array rebuild (the only behavior of "ancient" MDRAID/kernels builds) or b) continue with the rebuild process marking some LBA as bad/inaccessible. The rationale is that it is better to let the user do his choice: after all, a single URE can be on free space, not affecting data at all (or affecting only unimportant files);


  • ZRAID will show some file as corrupted, but it will continue with the rebuild process (see here for an example). Again, the rationale is that it is better to continue and report back to the user, enabling him to make an informed choice.







share|improve this answer


























  • @process91 Just to elaborate a bit further. If the RAID implementation doesn't have the additional data structures needed to mark individual sectors as bad, it has to either fail the rebuild or introduce silent corruption. Marking individual sectors as bad is better, but could still put other sectors at risk due to those sharing a parity sector with the bad sector.

    – kasperd
    Oct 28 '18 at 18:16











  • @kasperd Sure, I guess I assumed most RAID implementations had the capability to alert the user to bad sectors. I understand if there is a bad sector in one drive that will lead to an incorrect sector in the new drive after a rebuild. That said, even if the RAID implementation did nothing more than alert the user "I have rebuilt the drive as best as I could, but I experienced 1 URE in the process" and then continued to allow attempted writes to that sector I don't see how other sectors could be at risk. The only possible incorrect sectors would be the original, the new one, and the parity.

    – process91
    Oct 28 '18 at 18:41













  • One clarification, based on @Colt 's comments above - in the case of hardware RAID, when it marks the array as failed does it still allow access to the data at all? Even, say, read-only access for the purposes of attempted recovery?

    – process91
    Oct 28 '18 at 18:45











  • @process91 Allowing a sector to get corrupted is not considered a good idea, even if that fact was recorded to a log file. You'd have no idea which file might be corrupted. The RAID would have to ensure upon reading that file you get an error. Also clearly you don't want to just overwrite the bad sector, because that would mean you just lost your last chance of recovering the data. So you have an unreadable sector on one disk and a sector on the new disk where you don't know what to write. That could be two different files corrupted.

    – kasperd
    Oct 28 '18 at 18:46






  • 1





    @process91 I added a note about LSI-based arrays. Give it a look.

    – shodanshok
    Oct 28 '18 at 19:53



















7














If URE will happen you'll experience some data corruption over the block which is typically 256KB-1MB in size, but this doesn't mean ALL the data on your volume would be lost. What's not so great about RAID5 is a totally different thing: Rebuild itself is stressful and there're high chances you'll get second disk failure in a row. In such a case all the data would be lost.






share|improve this answer
























  • How is a RAID5 rebuild more stressful on a single drive than a RAID1 rebuild? I see that it is more stressful on the CPU, but for any specific drive we are simply reading all the data off it. Normally, the danger people cite with larger drives is that they will likely encounter a URE during the rebuild, but that's fine with me if it just means a single sector will be corrupted.

    – process91
    Oct 28 '18 at 10:46








  • 2





    It's probability theory. With N (where it's # of drives) your chances to have failure are N times higher.

    – BaronSamedi1958
    Oct 28 '18 at 15:07











  • That's not quite how the calculation would work, you'd actually want to calculate 1- probability of not having a failure, but I understand that part. It seems I've incorrectly interpreted your statement as suggesting that the act of rebuilding a RAID5 is somehow more stressful on the disk itself (which I've read elsewhere) which therefore increases the chance of a URE, but if that's not what you're saying then I agree.

    – process91
    Oct 28 '18 at 16:25



















2














I would explain it the other way around;



If the RAID controller don’t stop on URE, what could happen ?



I lived it on a server, the RAID never noticed the URE and after the rebuild a corruption started to build up on the entire RAID volume.



The disk started to get more bad sector after the rebuild and the data started to be corrupt.



The disk was never kicked off the RAID volume, the controller fail is job to protect the data integrity.



That example is wrote to make you think that a controller can’t thrust a volume with URE at all, its for the data integrity, as the volume is not meant to be a backup but a resiliance to a disk failure






share|improve this answer



















  • 1





    I see the new moderators are all constantly checking the site, looking for things to do...

    – Ward
    Oct 28 '18 at 2:28











  • @Ward haha, yeah :)

    – yagmoth555
    Oct 28 '18 at 2:32











  • Why would a single URE build up corruption in the entire RAID volume?

    – process91
    Oct 28 '18 at 10:35






  • 1





    Sorry, I reread your answer. It sounds like you had a single bad URE during the rebuild, but this wasn't the problem. The problem was that sectors continued to go bad after the rebuild, and the drive never reported it. This seems like a separate issue, however, from whether or not the RAID controller notices a URE during a rebuild. The RAID controller could notice the URE during rebuild and alert you to it but still proceed to finish the rebuild. Some data would always be better than no data.

    – process91
    Oct 28 '18 at 10:54








  • 1





    I'm only interested in analyzing why RAID5 was deemed as "dead" in 2009, which rests on the likelihood of a single URE. My understanding now is that this analysis was both mathematically incorrect and doesn't really apply in the same way to, for example, ZFS.

    – process91
    Oct 28 '18 at 11:05



















1














I'd suggest reading this question and answers for a bit more background. Then go and re-read the question you linked to again.



When someone says about this situation that "the RAID failed," it means you lost the benefit of the RAID - you lost the continuous access to data that was the reason you set up the RAID array in the first place.



You haven't lost all the data, but the most common way to recover from one dead drive plus (some) UREs on (some of) the remaining drives would be to completely rebuild the array from scratch, which will mean restoring all your data from backup.






share|improve this answer



















  • 1





    Generally, you use RAID when your goal is to minimize downtime. Having the array keep going with unknown and unrepaired corruption is usually counter to that goal.

    – David Schwartz
    Oct 28 '18 at 3:19











  • Thanks, that first question you linked to was very informative. Why would I have lost continuous access to the data? The array would still be up during the rebuild, and if it encounters a URE during the rebuild then I would expect it to just keep going, albeit with this one sector of data now corrupted. Is this not the case?

    – process91
    Oct 28 '18 at 10:45












Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "2"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fserverfault.com%2fquestions%2f937547%2fif-a-raid5-system-experiences-a-ure-during-rebuild-is-all-the-data-lost%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes








4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









21














It really depends on the specific RAID implementation:




  • most hardware RAID will abort the reconstruction and some will also mark the array as failed, bringing it down. The rationale is that if an URE happens during a RAID5 rebuild it means some data are lost, so it is better to completely stop the array rather that risking silent data corruption. Note: some hardware RAID (mainly LSI based) will instead puncture the array, allowing the rebuild to proceed while marking the affected sector as unreadable (similar to how Linux software RAID behaves).


  • linux software RAID can be instructed to a) stop the array rebuild (the only behavior of "ancient" MDRAID/kernels builds) or b) continue with the rebuild process marking some LBA as bad/inaccessible. The rationale is that it is better to let the user do his choice: after all, a single URE can be on free space, not affecting data at all (or affecting only unimportant files);


  • ZRAID will show some file as corrupted, but it will continue with the rebuild process (see here for an example). Again, the rationale is that it is better to continue and report back to the user, enabling him to make an informed choice.







share|improve this answer


























  • @process91 Just to elaborate a bit further. If the RAID implementation doesn't have the additional data structures needed to mark individual sectors as bad, it has to either fail the rebuild or introduce silent corruption. Marking individual sectors as bad is better, but could still put other sectors at risk due to those sharing a parity sector with the bad sector.

    – kasperd
    Oct 28 '18 at 18:16











  • @kasperd Sure, I guess I assumed most RAID implementations had the capability to alert the user to bad sectors. I understand if there is a bad sector in one drive that will lead to an incorrect sector in the new drive after a rebuild. That said, even if the RAID implementation did nothing more than alert the user "I have rebuilt the drive as best as I could, but I experienced 1 URE in the process" and then continued to allow attempted writes to that sector I don't see how other sectors could be at risk. The only possible incorrect sectors would be the original, the new one, and the parity.

    – process91
    Oct 28 '18 at 18:41













  • One clarification, based on @Colt 's comments above - in the case of hardware RAID, when it marks the array as failed does it still allow access to the data at all? Even, say, read-only access for the purposes of attempted recovery?

    – process91
    Oct 28 '18 at 18:45











  • @process91 Allowing a sector to get corrupted is not considered a good idea, even if that fact was recorded to a log file. You'd have no idea which file might be corrupted. The RAID would have to ensure upon reading that file you get an error. Also clearly you don't want to just overwrite the bad sector, because that would mean you just lost your last chance of recovering the data. So you have an unreadable sector on one disk and a sector on the new disk where you don't know what to write. That could be two different files corrupted.

    – kasperd
    Oct 28 '18 at 18:46






  • 1





    @process91 I added a note about LSI-based arrays. Give it a look.

    – shodanshok
    Oct 28 '18 at 19:53
















21














It really depends on the specific RAID implementation:




  • most hardware RAID will abort the reconstruction and some will also mark the array as failed, bringing it down. The rationale is that if an URE happens during a RAID5 rebuild it means some data are lost, so it is better to completely stop the array rather that risking silent data corruption. Note: some hardware RAID (mainly LSI based) will instead puncture the array, allowing the rebuild to proceed while marking the affected sector as unreadable (similar to how Linux software RAID behaves).


  • linux software RAID can be instructed to a) stop the array rebuild (the only behavior of "ancient" MDRAID/kernels builds) or b) continue with the rebuild process marking some LBA as bad/inaccessible. The rationale is that it is better to let the user do his choice: after all, a single URE can be on free space, not affecting data at all (or affecting only unimportant files);


  • ZRAID will show some file as corrupted, but it will continue with the rebuild process (see here for an example). Again, the rationale is that it is better to continue and report back to the user, enabling him to make an informed choice.







share|improve this answer


























  • @process91 Just to elaborate a bit further. If the RAID implementation doesn't have the additional data structures needed to mark individual sectors as bad, it has to either fail the rebuild or introduce silent corruption. Marking individual sectors as bad is better, but could still put other sectors at risk due to those sharing a parity sector with the bad sector.

    – kasperd
    Oct 28 '18 at 18:16











  • @kasperd Sure, I guess I assumed most RAID implementations had the capability to alert the user to bad sectors. I understand if there is a bad sector in one drive that will lead to an incorrect sector in the new drive after a rebuild. That said, even if the RAID implementation did nothing more than alert the user "I have rebuilt the drive as best as I could, but I experienced 1 URE in the process" and then continued to allow attempted writes to that sector I don't see how other sectors could be at risk. The only possible incorrect sectors would be the original, the new one, and the parity.

    – process91
    Oct 28 '18 at 18:41













  • One clarification, based on @Colt 's comments above - in the case of hardware RAID, when it marks the array as failed does it still allow access to the data at all? Even, say, read-only access for the purposes of attempted recovery?

    – process91
    Oct 28 '18 at 18:45











  • @process91 Allowing a sector to get corrupted is not considered a good idea, even if that fact was recorded to a log file. You'd have no idea which file might be corrupted. The RAID would have to ensure upon reading that file you get an error. Also clearly you don't want to just overwrite the bad sector, because that would mean you just lost your last chance of recovering the data. So you have an unreadable sector on one disk and a sector on the new disk where you don't know what to write. That could be two different files corrupted.

    – kasperd
    Oct 28 '18 at 18:46






  • 1





    @process91 I added a note about LSI-based arrays. Give it a look.

    – shodanshok
    Oct 28 '18 at 19:53














21












21








21







It really depends on the specific RAID implementation:




  • most hardware RAID will abort the reconstruction and some will also mark the array as failed, bringing it down. The rationale is that if an URE happens during a RAID5 rebuild it means some data are lost, so it is better to completely stop the array rather that risking silent data corruption. Note: some hardware RAID (mainly LSI based) will instead puncture the array, allowing the rebuild to proceed while marking the affected sector as unreadable (similar to how Linux software RAID behaves).


  • linux software RAID can be instructed to a) stop the array rebuild (the only behavior of "ancient" MDRAID/kernels builds) or b) continue with the rebuild process marking some LBA as bad/inaccessible. The rationale is that it is better to let the user do his choice: after all, a single URE can be on free space, not affecting data at all (or affecting only unimportant files);


  • ZRAID will show some file as corrupted, but it will continue with the rebuild process (see here for an example). Again, the rationale is that it is better to continue and report back to the user, enabling him to make an informed choice.







share|improve this answer















It really depends on the specific RAID implementation:




  • most hardware RAID will abort the reconstruction and some will also mark the array as failed, bringing it down. The rationale is that if an URE happens during a RAID5 rebuild it means some data are lost, so it is better to completely stop the array rather that risking silent data corruption. Note: some hardware RAID (mainly LSI based) will instead puncture the array, allowing the rebuild to proceed while marking the affected sector as unreadable (similar to how Linux software RAID behaves).


  • linux software RAID can be instructed to a) stop the array rebuild (the only behavior of "ancient" MDRAID/kernels builds) or b) continue with the rebuild process marking some LBA as bad/inaccessible. The rationale is that it is better to let the user do his choice: after all, a single URE can be on free space, not affecting data at all (or affecting only unimportant files);


  • ZRAID will show some file as corrupted, but it will continue with the rebuild process (see here for an example). Again, the rationale is that it is better to continue and report back to the user, enabling him to make an informed choice.








share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 8 mins ago

























answered Oct 28 '18 at 10:50









shodanshokshodanshok

26.7k34788




26.7k34788













  • @process91 Just to elaborate a bit further. If the RAID implementation doesn't have the additional data structures needed to mark individual sectors as bad, it has to either fail the rebuild or introduce silent corruption. Marking individual sectors as bad is better, but could still put other sectors at risk due to those sharing a parity sector with the bad sector.

    – kasperd
    Oct 28 '18 at 18:16











  • @kasperd Sure, I guess I assumed most RAID implementations had the capability to alert the user to bad sectors. I understand if there is a bad sector in one drive that will lead to an incorrect sector in the new drive after a rebuild. That said, even if the RAID implementation did nothing more than alert the user "I have rebuilt the drive as best as I could, but I experienced 1 URE in the process" and then continued to allow attempted writes to that sector I don't see how other sectors could be at risk. The only possible incorrect sectors would be the original, the new one, and the parity.

    – process91
    Oct 28 '18 at 18:41













  • One clarification, based on @Colt 's comments above - in the case of hardware RAID, when it marks the array as failed does it still allow access to the data at all? Even, say, read-only access for the purposes of attempted recovery?

    – process91
    Oct 28 '18 at 18:45











  • @process91 Allowing a sector to get corrupted is not considered a good idea, even if that fact was recorded to a log file. You'd have no idea which file might be corrupted. The RAID would have to ensure upon reading that file you get an error. Also clearly you don't want to just overwrite the bad sector, because that would mean you just lost your last chance of recovering the data. So you have an unreadable sector on one disk and a sector on the new disk where you don't know what to write. That could be two different files corrupted.

    – kasperd
    Oct 28 '18 at 18:46






  • 1





    @process91 I added a note about LSI-based arrays. Give it a look.

    – shodanshok
    Oct 28 '18 at 19:53



















  • @process91 Just to elaborate a bit further. If the RAID implementation doesn't have the additional data structures needed to mark individual sectors as bad, it has to either fail the rebuild or introduce silent corruption. Marking individual sectors as bad is better, but could still put other sectors at risk due to those sharing a parity sector with the bad sector.

    – kasperd
    Oct 28 '18 at 18:16











  • @kasperd Sure, I guess I assumed most RAID implementations had the capability to alert the user to bad sectors. I understand if there is a bad sector in one drive that will lead to an incorrect sector in the new drive after a rebuild. That said, even if the RAID implementation did nothing more than alert the user "I have rebuilt the drive as best as I could, but I experienced 1 URE in the process" and then continued to allow attempted writes to that sector I don't see how other sectors could be at risk. The only possible incorrect sectors would be the original, the new one, and the parity.

    – process91
    Oct 28 '18 at 18:41













  • One clarification, based on @Colt 's comments above - in the case of hardware RAID, when it marks the array as failed does it still allow access to the data at all? Even, say, read-only access for the purposes of attempted recovery?

    – process91
    Oct 28 '18 at 18:45











  • @process91 Allowing a sector to get corrupted is not considered a good idea, even if that fact was recorded to a log file. You'd have no idea which file might be corrupted. The RAID would have to ensure upon reading that file you get an error. Also clearly you don't want to just overwrite the bad sector, because that would mean you just lost your last chance of recovering the data. So you have an unreadable sector on one disk and a sector on the new disk where you don't know what to write. That could be two different files corrupted.

    – kasperd
    Oct 28 '18 at 18:46






  • 1





    @process91 I added a note about LSI-based arrays. Give it a look.

    – shodanshok
    Oct 28 '18 at 19:53

















@process91 Just to elaborate a bit further. If the RAID implementation doesn't have the additional data structures needed to mark individual sectors as bad, it has to either fail the rebuild or introduce silent corruption. Marking individual sectors as bad is better, but could still put other sectors at risk due to those sharing a parity sector with the bad sector.

– kasperd
Oct 28 '18 at 18:16





@process91 Just to elaborate a bit further. If the RAID implementation doesn't have the additional data structures needed to mark individual sectors as bad, it has to either fail the rebuild or introduce silent corruption. Marking individual sectors as bad is better, but could still put other sectors at risk due to those sharing a parity sector with the bad sector.

– kasperd
Oct 28 '18 at 18:16













@kasperd Sure, I guess I assumed most RAID implementations had the capability to alert the user to bad sectors. I understand if there is a bad sector in one drive that will lead to an incorrect sector in the new drive after a rebuild. That said, even if the RAID implementation did nothing more than alert the user "I have rebuilt the drive as best as I could, but I experienced 1 URE in the process" and then continued to allow attempted writes to that sector I don't see how other sectors could be at risk. The only possible incorrect sectors would be the original, the new one, and the parity.

– process91
Oct 28 '18 at 18:41







@kasperd Sure, I guess I assumed most RAID implementations had the capability to alert the user to bad sectors. I understand if there is a bad sector in one drive that will lead to an incorrect sector in the new drive after a rebuild. That said, even if the RAID implementation did nothing more than alert the user "I have rebuilt the drive as best as I could, but I experienced 1 URE in the process" and then continued to allow attempted writes to that sector I don't see how other sectors could be at risk. The only possible incorrect sectors would be the original, the new one, and the parity.

– process91
Oct 28 '18 at 18:41















One clarification, based on @Colt 's comments above - in the case of hardware RAID, when it marks the array as failed does it still allow access to the data at all? Even, say, read-only access for the purposes of attempted recovery?

– process91
Oct 28 '18 at 18:45





One clarification, based on @Colt 's comments above - in the case of hardware RAID, when it marks the array as failed does it still allow access to the data at all? Even, say, read-only access for the purposes of attempted recovery?

– process91
Oct 28 '18 at 18:45













@process91 Allowing a sector to get corrupted is not considered a good idea, even if that fact was recorded to a log file. You'd have no idea which file might be corrupted. The RAID would have to ensure upon reading that file you get an error. Also clearly you don't want to just overwrite the bad sector, because that would mean you just lost your last chance of recovering the data. So you have an unreadable sector on one disk and a sector on the new disk where you don't know what to write. That could be two different files corrupted.

– kasperd
Oct 28 '18 at 18:46





@process91 Allowing a sector to get corrupted is not considered a good idea, even if that fact was recorded to a log file. You'd have no idea which file might be corrupted. The RAID would have to ensure upon reading that file you get an error. Also clearly you don't want to just overwrite the bad sector, because that would mean you just lost your last chance of recovering the data. So you have an unreadable sector on one disk and a sector on the new disk where you don't know what to write. That could be two different files corrupted.

– kasperd
Oct 28 '18 at 18:46




1




1





@process91 I added a note about LSI-based arrays. Give it a look.

– shodanshok
Oct 28 '18 at 19:53





@process91 I added a note about LSI-based arrays. Give it a look.

– shodanshok
Oct 28 '18 at 19:53













7














If URE will happen you'll experience some data corruption over the block which is typically 256KB-1MB in size, but this doesn't mean ALL the data on your volume would be lost. What's not so great about RAID5 is a totally different thing: Rebuild itself is stressful and there're high chances you'll get second disk failure in a row. In such a case all the data would be lost.






share|improve this answer
























  • How is a RAID5 rebuild more stressful on a single drive than a RAID1 rebuild? I see that it is more stressful on the CPU, but for any specific drive we are simply reading all the data off it. Normally, the danger people cite with larger drives is that they will likely encounter a URE during the rebuild, but that's fine with me if it just means a single sector will be corrupted.

    – process91
    Oct 28 '18 at 10:46








  • 2





    It's probability theory. With N (where it's # of drives) your chances to have failure are N times higher.

    – BaronSamedi1958
    Oct 28 '18 at 15:07











  • That's not quite how the calculation would work, you'd actually want to calculate 1- probability of not having a failure, but I understand that part. It seems I've incorrectly interpreted your statement as suggesting that the act of rebuilding a RAID5 is somehow more stressful on the disk itself (which I've read elsewhere) which therefore increases the chance of a URE, but if that's not what you're saying then I agree.

    – process91
    Oct 28 '18 at 16:25
















7














If URE will happen you'll experience some data corruption over the block which is typically 256KB-1MB in size, but this doesn't mean ALL the data on your volume would be lost. What's not so great about RAID5 is a totally different thing: Rebuild itself is stressful and there're high chances you'll get second disk failure in a row. In such a case all the data would be lost.






share|improve this answer
























  • How is a RAID5 rebuild more stressful on a single drive than a RAID1 rebuild? I see that it is more stressful on the CPU, but for any specific drive we are simply reading all the data off it. Normally, the danger people cite with larger drives is that they will likely encounter a URE during the rebuild, but that's fine with me if it just means a single sector will be corrupted.

    – process91
    Oct 28 '18 at 10:46








  • 2





    It's probability theory. With N (where it's # of drives) your chances to have failure are N times higher.

    – BaronSamedi1958
    Oct 28 '18 at 15:07











  • That's not quite how the calculation would work, you'd actually want to calculate 1- probability of not having a failure, but I understand that part. It seems I've incorrectly interpreted your statement as suggesting that the act of rebuilding a RAID5 is somehow more stressful on the disk itself (which I've read elsewhere) which therefore increases the chance of a URE, but if that's not what you're saying then I agree.

    – process91
    Oct 28 '18 at 16:25














7












7








7







If URE will happen you'll experience some data corruption over the block which is typically 256KB-1MB in size, but this doesn't mean ALL the data on your volume would be lost. What's not so great about RAID5 is a totally different thing: Rebuild itself is stressful and there're high chances you'll get second disk failure in a row. In such a case all the data would be lost.






share|improve this answer













If URE will happen you'll experience some data corruption over the block which is typically 256KB-1MB in size, but this doesn't mean ALL the data on your volume would be lost. What's not so great about RAID5 is a totally different thing: Rebuild itself is stressful and there're high chances you'll get second disk failure in a row. In such a case all the data would be lost.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered Oct 28 '18 at 9:06









BaronSamedi1958BaronSamedi1958

7,44911128




7,44911128













  • How is a RAID5 rebuild more stressful on a single drive than a RAID1 rebuild? I see that it is more stressful on the CPU, but for any specific drive we are simply reading all the data off it. Normally, the danger people cite with larger drives is that they will likely encounter a URE during the rebuild, but that's fine with me if it just means a single sector will be corrupted.

    – process91
    Oct 28 '18 at 10:46








  • 2





    It's probability theory. With N (where it's # of drives) your chances to have failure are N times higher.

    – BaronSamedi1958
    Oct 28 '18 at 15:07











  • That's not quite how the calculation would work, you'd actually want to calculate 1- probability of not having a failure, but I understand that part. It seems I've incorrectly interpreted your statement as suggesting that the act of rebuilding a RAID5 is somehow more stressful on the disk itself (which I've read elsewhere) which therefore increases the chance of a URE, but if that's not what you're saying then I agree.

    – process91
    Oct 28 '18 at 16:25



















  • How is a RAID5 rebuild more stressful on a single drive than a RAID1 rebuild? I see that it is more stressful on the CPU, but for any specific drive we are simply reading all the data off it. Normally, the danger people cite with larger drives is that they will likely encounter a URE during the rebuild, but that's fine with me if it just means a single sector will be corrupted.

    – process91
    Oct 28 '18 at 10:46








  • 2





    It's probability theory. With N (where it's # of drives) your chances to have failure are N times higher.

    – BaronSamedi1958
    Oct 28 '18 at 15:07











  • That's not quite how the calculation would work, you'd actually want to calculate 1- probability of not having a failure, but I understand that part. It seems I've incorrectly interpreted your statement as suggesting that the act of rebuilding a RAID5 is somehow more stressful on the disk itself (which I've read elsewhere) which therefore increases the chance of a URE, but if that's not what you're saying then I agree.

    – process91
    Oct 28 '18 at 16:25

















How is a RAID5 rebuild more stressful on a single drive than a RAID1 rebuild? I see that it is more stressful on the CPU, but for any specific drive we are simply reading all the data off it. Normally, the danger people cite with larger drives is that they will likely encounter a URE during the rebuild, but that's fine with me if it just means a single sector will be corrupted.

– process91
Oct 28 '18 at 10:46







How is a RAID5 rebuild more stressful on a single drive than a RAID1 rebuild? I see that it is more stressful on the CPU, but for any specific drive we are simply reading all the data off it. Normally, the danger people cite with larger drives is that they will likely encounter a URE during the rebuild, but that's fine with me if it just means a single sector will be corrupted.

– process91
Oct 28 '18 at 10:46






2




2





It's probability theory. With N (where it's # of drives) your chances to have failure are N times higher.

– BaronSamedi1958
Oct 28 '18 at 15:07





It's probability theory. With N (where it's # of drives) your chances to have failure are N times higher.

– BaronSamedi1958
Oct 28 '18 at 15:07













That's not quite how the calculation would work, you'd actually want to calculate 1- probability of not having a failure, but I understand that part. It seems I've incorrectly interpreted your statement as suggesting that the act of rebuilding a RAID5 is somehow more stressful on the disk itself (which I've read elsewhere) which therefore increases the chance of a URE, but if that's not what you're saying then I agree.

– process91
Oct 28 '18 at 16:25





That's not quite how the calculation would work, you'd actually want to calculate 1- probability of not having a failure, but I understand that part. It seems I've incorrectly interpreted your statement as suggesting that the act of rebuilding a RAID5 is somehow more stressful on the disk itself (which I've read elsewhere) which therefore increases the chance of a URE, but if that's not what you're saying then I agree.

– process91
Oct 28 '18 at 16:25











2














I would explain it the other way around;



If the RAID controller don’t stop on URE, what could happen ?



I lived it on a server, the RAID never noticed the URE and after the rebuild a corruption started to build up on the entire RAID volume.



The disk started to get more bad sector after the rebuild and the data started to be corrupt.



The disk was never kicked off the RAID volume, the controller fail is job to protect the data integrity.



That example is wrote to make you think that a controller can’t thrust a volume with URE at all, its for the data integrity, as the volume is not meant to be a backup but a resiliance to a disk failure






share|improve this answer



















  • 1





    I see the new moderators are all constantly checking the site, looking for things to do...

    – Ward
    Oct 28 '18 at 2:28











  • @Ward haha, yeah :)

    – yagmoth555
    Oct 28 '18 at 2:32











  • Why would a single URE build up corruption in the entire RAID volume?

    – process91
    Oct 28 '18 at 10:35






  • 1





    Sorry, I reread your answer. It sounds like you had a single bad URE during the rebuild, but this wasn't the problem. The problem was that sectors continued to go bad after the rebuild, and the drive never reported it. This seems like a separate issue, however, from whether or not the RAID controller notices a URE during a rebuild. The RAID controller could notice the URE during rebuild and alert you to it but still proceed to finish the rebuild. Some data would always be better than no data.

    – process91
    Oct 28 '18 at 10:54








  • 1





    I'm only interested in analyzing why RAID5 was deemed as "dead" in 2009, which rests on the likelihood of a single URE. My understanding now is that this analysis was both mathematically incorrect and doesn't really apply in the same way to, for example, ZFS.

    – process91
    Oct 28 '18 at 11:05
















2














I would explain it the other way around;



If the RAID controller don’t stop on URE, what could happen ?



I lived it on a server, the RAID never noticed the URE and after the rebuild a corruption started to build up on the entire RAID volume.



The disk started to get more bad sector after the rebuild and the data started to be corrupt.



The disk was never kicked off the RAID volume, the controller fail is job to protect the data integrity.



That example is wrote to make you think that a controller can’t thrust a volume with URE at all, its for the data integrity, as the volume is not meant to be a backup but a resiliance to a disk failure






share|improve this answer



















  • 1





    I see the new moderators are all constantly checking the site, looking for things to do...

    – Ward
    Oct 28 '18 at 2:28











  • @Ward haha, yeah :)

    – yagmoth555
    Oct 28 '18 at 2:32











  • Why would a single URE build up corruption in the entire RAID volume?

    – process91
    Oct 28 '18 at 10:35






  • 1





    Sorry, I reread your answer. It sounds like you had a single bad URE during the rebuild, but this wasn't the problem. The problem was that sectors continued to go bad after the rebuild, and the drive never reported it. This seems like a separate issue, however, from whether or not the RAID controller notices a URE during a rebuild. The RAID controller could notice the URE during rebuild and alert you to it but still proceed to finish the rebuild. Some data would always be better than no data.

    – process91
    Oct 28 '18 at 10:54








  • 1





    I'm only interested in analyzing why RAID5 was deemed as "dead" in 2009, which rests on the likelihood of a single URE. My understanding now is that this analysis was both mathematically incorrect and doesn't really apply in the same way to, for example, ZFS.

    – process91
    Oct 28 '18 at 11:05














2












2








2







I would explain it the other way around;



If the RAID controller don’t stop on URE, what could happen ?



I lived it on a server, the RAID never noticed the URE and after the rebuild a corruption started to build up on the entire RAID volume.



The disk started to get more bad sector after the rebuild and the data started to be corrupt.



The disk was never kicked off the RAID volume, the controller fail is job to protect the data integrity.



That example is wrote to make you think that a controller can’t thrust a volume with URE at all, its for the data integrity, as the volume is not meant to be a backup but a resiliance to a disk failure






share|improve this answer













I would explain it the other way around;



If the RAID controller don’t stop on URE, what could happen ?



I lived it on a server, the RAID never noticed the URE and after the rebuild a corruption started to build up on the entire RAID volume.



The disk started to get more bad sector after the rebuild and the data started to be corrupt.



The disk was never kicked off the RAID volume, the controller fail is job to protect the data integrity.



That example is wrote to make you think that a controller can’t thrust a volume with URE at all, its for the data integrity, as the volume is not meant to be a backup but a resiliance to a disk failure







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered Oct 28 '18 at 2:18









yagmoth555yagmoth555

12.4k31842




12.4k31842








  • 1





    I see the new moderators are all constantly checking the site, looking for things to do...

    – Ward
    Oct 28 '18 at 2:28











  • @Ward haha, yeah :)

    – yagmoth555
    Oct 28 '18 at 2:32











  • Why would a single URE build up corruption in the entire RAID volume?

    – process91
    Oct 28 '18 at 10:35






  • 1





    Sorry, I reread your answer. It sounds like you had a single bad URE during the rebuild, but this wasn't the problem. The problem was that sectors continued to go bad after the rebuild, and the drive never reported it. This seems like a separate issue, however, from whether or not the RAID controller notices a URE during a rebuild. The RAID controller could notice the URE during rebuild and alert you to it but still proceed to finish the rebuild. Some data would always be better than no data.

    – process91
    Oct 28 '18 at 10:54








  • 1





    I'm only interested in analyzing why RAID5 was deemed as "dead" in 2009, which rests on the likelihood of a single URE. My understanding now is that this analysis was both mathematically incorrect and doesn't really apply in the same way to, for example, ZFS.

    – process91
    Oct 28 '18 at 11:05














  • 1





    I see the new moderators are all constantly checking the site, looking for things to do...

    – Ward
    Oct 28 '18 at 2:28











  • @Ward haha, yeah :)

    – yagmoth555
    Oct 28 '18 at 2:32











  • Why would a single URE build up corruption in the entire RAID volume?

    – process91
    Oct 28 '18 at 10:35






  • 1





    Sorry, I reread your answer. It sounds like you had a single bad URE during the rebuild, but this wasn't the problem. The problem was that sectors continued to go bad after the rebuild, and the drive never reported it. This seems like a separate issue, however, from whether or not the RAID controller notices a URE during a rebuild. The RAID controller could notice the URE during rebuild and alert you to it but still proceed to finish the rebuild. Some data would always be better than no data.

    – process91
    Oct 28 '18 at 10:54








  • 1





    I'm only interested in analyzing why RAID5 was deemed as "dead" in 2009, which rests on the likelihood of a single URE. My understanding now is that this analysis was both mathematically incorrect and doesn't really apply in the same way to, for example, ZFS.

    – process91
    Oct 28 '18 at 11:05








1




1





I see the new moderators are all constantly checking the site, looking for things to do...

– Ward
Oct 28 '18 at 2:28





I see the new moderators are all constantly checking the site, looking for things to do...

– Ward
Oct 28 '18 at 2:28













@Ward haha, yeah :)

– yagmoth555
Oct 28 '18 at 2:32





@Ward haha, yeah :)

– yagmoth555
Oct 28 '18 at 2:32













Why would a single URE build up corruption in the entire RAID volume?

– process91
Oct 28 '18 at 10:35





Why would a single URE build up corruption in the entire RAID volume?

– process91
Oct 28 '18 at 10:35




1




1





Sorry, I reread your answer. It sounds like you had a single bad URE during the rebuild, but this wasn't the problem. The problem was that sectors continued to go bad after the rebuild, and the drive never reported it. This seems like a separate issue, however, from whether or not the RAID controller notices a URE during a rebuild. The RAID controller could notice the URE during rebuild and alert you to it but still proceed to finish the rebuild. Some data would always be better than no data.

– process91
Oct 28 '18 at 10:54







Sorry, I reread your answer. It sounds like you had a single bad URE during the rebuild, but this wasn't the problem. The problem was that sectors continued to go bad after the rebuild, and the drive never reported it. This seems like a separate issue, however, from whether or not the RAID controller notices a URE during a rebuild. The RAID controller could notice the URE during rebuild and alert you to it but still proceed to finish the rebuild. Some data would always be better than no data.

– process91
Oct 28 '18 at 10:54






1




1





I'm only interested in analyzing why RAID5 was deemed as "dead" in 2009, which rests on the likelihood of a single URE. My understanding now is that this analysis was both mathematically incorrect and doesn't really apply in the same way to, for example, ZFS.

– process91
Oct 28 '18 at 11:05





I'm only interested in analyzing why RAID5 was deemed as "dead" in 2009, which rests on the likelihood of a single URE. My understanding now is that this analysis was both mathematically incorrect and doesn't really apply in the same way to, for example, ZFS.

– process91
Oct 28 '18 at 11:05











1














I'd suggest reading this question and answers for a bit more background. Then go and re-read the question you linked to again.



When someone says about this situation that "the RAID failed," it means you lost the benefit of the RAID - you lost the continuous access to data that was the reason you set up the RAID array in the first place.



You haven't lost all the data, but the most common way to recover from one dead drive plus (some) UREs on (some of) the remaining drives would be to completely rebuild the array from scratch, which will mean restoring all your data from backup.






share|improve this answer



















  • 1





    Generally, you use RAID when your goal is to minimize downtime. Having the array keep going with unknown and unrepaired corruption is usually counter to that goal.

    – David Schwartz
    Oct 28 '18 at 3:19











  • Thanks, that first question you linked to was very informative. Why would I have lost continuous access to the data? The array would still be up during the rebuild, and if it encounters a URE during the rebuild then I would expect it to just keep going, albeit with this one sector of data now corrupted. Is this not the case?

    – process91
    Oct 28 '18 at 10:45
















1














I'd suggest reading this question and answers for a bit more background. Then go and re-read the question you linked to again.



When someone says about this situation that "the RAID failed," it means you lost the benefit of the RAID - you lost the continuous access to data that was the reason you set up the RAID array in the first place.



You haven't lost all the data, but the most common way to recover from one dead drive plus (some) UREs on (some of) the remaining drives would be to completely rebuild the array from scratch, which will mean restoring all your data from backup.






share|improve this answer



















  • 1





    Generally, you use RAID when your goal is to minimize downtime. Having the array keep going with unknown and unrepaired corruption is usually counter to that goal.

    – David Schwartz
    Oct 28 '18 at 3:19











  • Thanks, that first question you linked to was very informative. Why would I have lost continuous access to the data? The array would still be up during the rebuild, and if it encounters a URE during the rebuild then I would expect it to just keep going, albeit with this one sector of data now corrupted. Is this not the case?

    – process91
    Oct 28 '18 at 10:45














1












1








1







I'd suggest reading this question and answers for a bit more background. Then go and re-read the question you linked to again.



When someone says about this situation that "the RAID failed," it means you lost the benefit of the RAID - you lost the continuous access to data that was the reason you set up the RAID array in the first place.



You haven't lost all the data, but the most common way to recover from one dead drive plus (some) UREs on (some of) the remaining drives would be to completely rebuild the array from scratch, which will mean restoring all your data from backup.






share|improve this answer













I'd suggest reading this question and answers for a bit more background. Then go and re-read the question you linked to again.



When someone says about this situation that "the RAID failed," it means you lost the benefit of the RAID - you lost the continuous access to data that was the reason you set up the RAID array in the first place.



You haven't lost all the data, but the most common way to recover from one dead drive plus (some) UREs on (some of) the remaining drives would be to completely rebuild the array from scratch, which will mean restoring all your data from backup.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered Oct 28 '18 at 2:28









WardWard

11.7k73956




11.7k73956








  • 1





    Generally, you use RAID when your goal is to minimize downtime. Having the array keep going with unknown and unrepaired corruption is usually counter to that goal.

    – David Schwartz
    Oct 28 '18 at 3:19











  • Thanks, that first question you linked to was very informative. Why would I have lost continuous access to the data? The array would still be up during the rebuild, and if it encounters a URE during the rebuild then I would expect it to just keep going, albeit with this one sector of data now corrupted. Is this not the case?

    – process91
    Oct 28 '18 at 10:45














  • 1





    Generally, you use RAID when your goal is to minimize downtime. Having the array keep going with unknown and unrepaired corruption is usually counter to that goal.

    – David Schwartz
    Oct 28 '18 at 3:19











  • Thanks, that first question you linked to was very informative. Why would I have lost continuous access to the data? The array would still be up during the rebuild, and if it encounters a URE during the rebuild then I would expect it to just keep going, albeit with this one sector of data now corrupted. Is this not the case?

    – process91
    Oct 28 '18 at 10:45








1




1





Generally, you use RAID when your goal is to minimize downtime. Having the array keep going with unknown and unrepaired corruption is usually counter to that goal.

– David Schwartz
Oct 28 '18 at 3:19





Generally, you use RAID when your goal is to minimize downtime. Having the array keep going with unknown and unrepaired corruption is usually counter to that goal.

– David Schwartz
Oct 28 '18 at 3:19













Thanks, that first question you linked to was very informative. Why would I have lost continuous access to the data? The array would still be up during the rebuild, and if it encounters a URE during the rebuild then I would expect it to just keep going, albeit with this one sector of data now corrupted. Is this not the case?

– process91
Oct 28 '18 at 10:45





Thanks, that first question you linked to was very informative. Why would I have lost continuous access to the data? The array would still be up during the rebuild, and if it encounters a URE during the rebuild then I would expect it to just keep going, albeit with this one sector of data now corrupted. Is this not the case?

– process91
Oct 28 '18 at 10:45


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Server Fault!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fserverfault.com%2fquestions%2f937547%2fif-a-raid5-system-experiences-a-ure-during-rebuild-is-all-the-data-lost%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

As a Security Precaution, the user account has been locked The Next CEO of Stack OverflowMS...

Список ссавців Італії Природоохоронні статуси | Список |...

Українські прізвища Зміст Історичні відомості |...