Raid failure - can I recover data?

[bug]

Hmm, so my motherboard has the LSI 3008 controller which doesn't support raid 5 or 6 - however it looks like the Sata ports also have a raid controller on them which DOES support raid 5. Previously I couldn't use that as I had no ports left for the boot drive, but as part of this recovery, I've had to add extra ports so now I can use this option. That also remove both the Sas cables and the controller - one of which I no longer trust.

Looks like a great way forward - Thank you.

Yeah, that's the thing about RAID, if you don't go all-in, you're better off not going in at all.
That said, you've learned something and didn't lose any data doing so

 

[PerfectWave]

Ok, I've finally manged to make some progress using http://www.freeraidrecovery.com/. I attached my drives without using the raid controller and it found the correct raid parameters. I then used the reclaime file recovery software and have recovered EVERYTHING!

This just confirms my suspicions that the drives are and were always fine. So, either the controller has had an issue or (as has been suggested), the cable(s) have failed. I still suspect the raid controller as this whole episode started when I plugged in another controller to run the tape drive.

Now my dilemma is, do I rebuild the raid as before or just drop the idea of raid all together (it didn't really help me here at all!) and make use of the new tape drive to keep simple backups in case of failure. I'm leaning to the second option as I have no need for raid in terms of speed, it was just a way of giving me some fault tolerance and it totally failed to do that in the end.

Thanks for all the replies.

Told you to use software rescue

 

[sixor]

i had raid0 with 2 ssd, and i had 2 times raid fail, i had to remake the raid and i though they were going to be wiped but no, all was there, both times

i know it is not your case, i just wanted to comment

 

[newtekie1]

Now my dilemma is, do I rebuild the raid as before or just drop the idea of raid all together (it didn't really help me here at all!) and make use of the new tape drive to keep simple backups in case of failure. I'm leaning to the second option as I have no need for raid in terms of speed, it was just a way of giving me some fault tolerance and it totally failed to do that in the end.

Use something that doesn't include RAID0. Nothing RAID0 should be used if data redundancy is your main priority.

Hmm, so my motherboard has the LSI 3008 controller which doesn't support raid 5 or 6 - however it looks like the Sata ports also have a raid controller on them which DOES support raid 5. Previously I couldn't use that as I had no ports left for the boot drive, but as part of this recovery, I've had to add extra ports so now I can use this option. That also remove both the Sas cables and the controller - one of which I no longer trust.

Looks like a great way forward - Thank you.

I wouldn't use an onboard controller at all, buy a separate RAID card and put your data array on that. Something like the Highpoint RocketRAID 2720 is only $150 and does RAID5 and RAID6 and allows you to attached up to 8 drives to it. You'll have to buy a couple SFF-8087 to SATA Break Out Cables, but their only about $10 each. Well worth the money, IMO. And if you ever upgrade the motherboard or computer, you just pull the card out with the drives and plug it into the new computer/motherboard and all your data is just there.

 

[Steevo]

Ok, I've finally manged to make some progress using http://www.freeraidrecovery.com/. I attached my drives without using the raid controller and it found the correct raid parameters. I then used the reclaime file recovery software and have recovered EVERYTHING!

This just confirms my suspicions that the drives are and were always fine. So, either the controller has had an issue or (as has been suggested), the cable(s) have failed. I still suspect the raid controller as this whole episode started when I plugged in another controller to run the tape drive.

Now my dilemma is, do I rebuild the raid as before or just drop the idea of raid all together (it didn't really help me here at all!) and make use of the new tape drive to keep simple backups in case of failure. I'm leaning to the second option as I have no need for raid in terms of speed, it was just a way of giving me some fault tolerance and it totally failed to do that in the end.

Thanks for all the replies.

I have worked with the Dell Proliant servers a decent amount through the years and the LSI controllers they use suck, I would pickup either a PCIe card or just ante up and bite the bullet for SSD's unless you are needing big capacity, and then I would suggest moving the OS and high access files to a SSD and large files to another RAID card of 3 large disks in RAID5 plus a hot spare.

 

[Assimilator]

"RAID" is an IT industry synonym for "pain and torment". I have also personally experienced a multi-drive failure in a RAID5 volume, the end result being that I just do backups now.

 

[newtekie1]

"RAID" is an IT industry synonym for "pain and torment". I have also personally experienced a multi-drive failure in a RAID5 volume, the end result being that I just do backups now.

RAID is not a substitute for backups. All of my RAID volumes are also backed up.

 

[Ahhzz]

RAID is not a substitute for backups. All of my RAID volumes are also backed up.

Raid is good for a server environment, a "OMG the drive failed, oh we can keep running until I get a new drive in, and we're not dead in the water" time. The backup is for when the idiot monitoring the server doesn't catch the failed drive, and you lose two drive, crashing the array, and losing everything.

 

[bug]

"RAID" is an IT industry synonym for "pain and torment". I have also personally experienced a multi-drive failure in a RAID5 volume, the end result being that I just do backups now.

The "I" stands for "inexpensive". That should tell you everything you need to know

 

[Assimilator]

RAID is not a substitute for backups.

Yup, as I said, learned that the hard way.

 

[phill]

I'm glad you've managed to get your data back I don't believe sometimes you can have too many backups but it's having the right data backed up that's most important

I was wondering on the actual raid card, was there no option for repair/rebuilding the raid? I'm curious as I'll be trying to set some raids up shortly and I'd hope that was an option I was also wondering, did it turn out that the drives were fine but the raid controller had a fit and just decided to 'loose' a few drives? Did you figure out what caused the problem?

 

[bug]

I'm glad you've managed to get your data back I don't believe sometimes you can have too many backups but it's having the right data backed up that's most important

I was wondering on the actual raid card, was there no option for repair/rebuilding the raid? I'm curious as I'll be trying to set some raids up shortly and I'd hope that was an option I was also wondering, did it turn out that the drives were fine but the raid controller had a fit and just decided to 'loose' a few drives? Did you figure out what caused the problem?

It looks like the controller was the culprit, if the drives were fine and all data was there.

 

[phill]

I've had a similar issue with a Gigabyte board, lost the raid, replaced the board for the exact same model and raid working. Learnt my lesson as it was on Raid 0, so no redundancy.. Was very lucky

As it's been mentioned in the thread before, backups are key

 

[bug]

I've had a similar issue with a Gigabyte board, lost the raid, replaced the board for the exact same model and raid working. Learnt my lesson as it was on Raid 0, so no redundancy.. Was very lucky

As it's been mentioned in the thread before, backups are key

Well, the OP had mirroring in there.

And backups... everybody keeps mentioning them. But where do you keep those backups? Because if you keep them next to your desktop/NAS box, a little water can take care of both in a couple of minutes. If you keep them in the cloud, then your data isn't really your data anymore.
The truth is data redundancy isn't for home users, it's too complicated and expensive to do right. We do our best and most of us get away with a little compromise here and there. But then there's the odd fellow that's not so lucky and you can't help feeling sorry for them.

 

[phill]

I've personally 4 backups, but that's just me

I suppose it all boils down to how much you value your data.. I'm glad the OP has his back and sorted It's horrible loosing data, even more so when its so important to you..

 

[Assimilator]

And backups... everybody keeps mentioning them. But where do you keep those backups? Because if you keep them next to your desktop/NAS box, a little water can take care of both in a couple of minutes. If you keep them in the cloud, then your data isn't really your data anymore.
The truth is data redundancy isn't for home users, it's too complicated and expensive to do right. We do our best and most of us get away with a little compromise here and there. But then there's the odd fellow that's not so lucky and you can't help feeling sorry for them.

You buy another hard disk that's big enough for your backups, you put those backups on there, and then you store that disk somewhere away from your house. Take it to work with you, or put it in a safety deposit box at your bank. It's a pain, but the only way to be certain that your backups are useful.

Thankfully, however, the rise of high-bandwidth internet and cloud storage is making this strategy unnecessary. "Your data isn't really your data" is easily overcome with encryption.