Disk Enclosures
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Logical Drive 1 Status - Ready for Recovery

james.vrx22
Advisor

Logical Drive 1 Status - Ready for Recovery

Hi there,

I have read a few other threads about similar issues but am needed a bit of clarity in regards to the issues.

Attached is the report from the ACU on my clients site. Recently they had a HDD fail in the RAID 5 Array. Now they had a hot spare setup before and now that we have replaced the failed drive we have a Ready for Recovery Status.

The interesting thing is when you click on more information of the logical drive the status is showing Waiting for Rebuild.

Any advise on what the problem could be, is it a matter of having to rebuild the array? or replace the backplan?

Suggestions?

Cheers
James
2 REPLIES
Víctor Cespón
Honored Contributor

Re: Logical Drive 1 Status - Ready for Recovery

The ADU report is very short, but let's summarize:
There are 6 drives, drives 1-3 form a RAID5, drive 4 is spare for that RAID, drives 5 and 6 form a RAID 1.

For logical drive 1:
Big Drive Failure Map: 0x0000
(That means no drives are failed)
Big Replacement Drive Map: 0x0001
(You replaced drive 1)
Big Active Spare Map: 0x0000
The spare disk is not being used

Drive Status Ready for recovery
Unit Flags: Previous rebuild aborted due to read error.

Looks like the rebuild process did not complete, so even when all drives are pressent, the RAID is not in normal state.

Try to update Smart Array firmware (see advisories below) and run a more recent version of ADU

http://h20000.www2.hp.com/bizsupport/TechSupport/Document.jsp?lang=en&cc=us&objectID=c01318999

http://h20000.www2.hp.com/bizsupport/TechSupport/Document.jsp?lang=en&cc=us&objectID=c01382041

http://h20000.www2.hp.com/bizsupportTechSupport/Document.jsp?objectID=c01587778
james.vrx22
Advisor

Re: Logical Drive 1 Status - Ready for Recovery

Thanks for that. I will have a read through them just shortly.

I purposly shortened the report as the part that was attached was the only part that referenced the error in any way.

Cheers
James