External Drive online but not recognized
-
@Joel said:
I assume I can download software which will then allow me to mount the drive (assuming its readable)?
No extra software needed... this isn't Windows you know.
All of the power and features are built in. -
At this point, it may be best to drop the drives back in the old NAS unit and see if it fires up at all. If it does, just copy data from the old NAS to the new.
If it does not, then try to do it with Linux. In the worst case scenario: Dead Nas & no backups, Paragon also has some software that will read EXT partitions in windows. Windows may not recognize the RAID blocks, but Paragon's software might know how to deal with it.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I definitely understand abstraction in RAID 10, 5, 6, etc, but with RAID 1 it seems like unnecessary overhead.
Why? Why do you feel it needs to exist for the others but feel that RAID 1 is unique? Abstraction is abstraction. You have RAID or you do not.
Could you do RAID 1 without any abstraction on the disks themselves? Yes. Could you do it and still have the expected features like the disk itself knowing about its RAID? No.
In RAID 1 does that matter? I definitely understand it's need in the other RAIDs.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I definitely understand abstraction in RAID 10, 5, 6, etc, but with RAID 1 it seems like unnecessary overhead.
Why? Why do you feel it needs to exist for the others but feel that RAID 1 is unique? Abstraction is abstraction. You have RAID or you do not.
Could you do RAID 1 without any abstraction on the disks themselves? Yes. Could you do it and still have the expected features like the disk itself knowing about its RAID? No.
In RAID 1 does that matter? I definitely understand it's need in the other RAIDs.
RAID has an abstraction. That you are using RAID 1 doesn't change that. RAID 1 is not a special case in any way.
Are you thinking that RAID 1 implementations specifically drop the RAID abstraction at the disk layer and act differently than all other RAID levels, even within a single implementation?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I definitely understand abstraction in RAID 10, 5, 6, etc, but with RAID 1 it seems like unnecessary overhead.
Why? Why do you feel it needs to exist for the others but feel that RAID 1 is unique? Abstraction is abstraction. You have RAID or you do not.
Could you do RAID 1 without any abstraction on the disks themselves? Yes. Could you do it and still have the expected features like the disk itself knowing about its RAID? No.
In RAID 1 does that matter? I definitely understand it's need in the other RAIDs.
RAID has an abstraction. That you are using RAID 1 doesn't change that. RAID 1 is not a special case in any way.
Are you thinking that RAID 1 implementations specifically drop the RAID abstraction at the disk layer and act differently than all other RAID levels, even within a single implementation?
This has been my personal experience. The few times I've needed two, I could just remove one drive and slave it up to another computer and assuming the file system was known you could mount it and it just worked.
Granted this was probably 10+ years ago.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I definitely understand abstraction in RAID 10, 5, 6, etc, but with RAID 1 it seems like unnecessary overhead.
Why? Why do you feel it needs to exist for the others but feel that RAID 1 is unique? Abstraction is abstraction. You have RAID or you do not.
Could you do RAID 1 without any abstraction on the disks themselves? Yes. Could you do it and still have the expected features like the disk itself knowing about its RAID? No.
In RAID 1 does that matter? I definitely understand it's need in the other RAIDs.
RAID has an abstraction. That you are using RAID 1 doesn't change that. RAID 1 is not a special case in any way.
Are you thinking that RAID 1 implementations specifically drop the RAID abstraction at the disk layer and act differently than all other RAID levels, even within a single implementation?
This has been my personal experience. The few times I've needed two, I could just remove one drive and slave it up to another computer and assuming the file system was known you could mount it and it just worked.
Granted this was probably 10+ years ago.
What RAID system was that? Remember all things like this are RAID implementation specific. There is nothing generic with RAID except for what the levels mean.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I definitely understand abstraction in RAID 10, 5, 6, etc, but with RAID 1 it seems like unnecessary overhead.
Why? Why do you feel it needs to exist for the others but feel that RAID 1 is unique? Abstraction is abstraction. You have RAID or you do not.
Could you do RAID 1 without any abstraction on the disks themselves? Yes. Could you do it and still have the expected features like the disk itself knowing about its RAID? No.
In RAID 1 does that matter? I definitely understand it's need in the other RAIDs.
RAID has an abstraction. That you are using RAID 1 doesn't change that. RAID 1 is not a special case in any way.
Are you thinking that RAID 1 implementations specifically drop the RAID abstraction at the disk layer and act differently than all other RAID levels, even within a single implementation?
This has been my personal experience. The few times I've needed two, I could just remove one drive and slave it up to another computer and assuming the file system was known you could mount it and it just worked.
Granted this was probably 10+ years ago.
So long as it's on the same type system, this is still true @Dashrender. Most low to mid range storage boxes use mdadm for the actual storage, so connecting a drive from one of those to a Windows or MAC computer won't work.
In this case, if they put the old drives in the new NAS, the data could well just be gone, unless they pay for some expensive data recovery something or other.
You probably want to boot into a live Linux distribution of some sort. It's that or jump through some hoops to present the bare drive to a Linux VM in Virtualbox. That's your best chance at actually reading something from that drive anyway.
-
Have they tried putting the drives back in the OLD nas yet?
-
UPDATE: So original NAS was plugged back in as it was - but we cant access it or browse to it (although you can ping it via IP but not hostname). They've rebooted it as well (despite me saying not to!!!!)
There is a flashing blue light on the power button - Assume that's initiating some kind of repair? - I'll leave it for a while and see what happens with it
-
My guess is that they reversed the drives. Can't do that.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
My guess is that they reversed the drives. Can't do that.
ouch! their backup is a week out of date!
-
@Joel said:
@scottalanmiller said:
My guess is that they reversed the drives. Can't do that.
ouch! their backup is a week out of date!
that's the problem with people making horrible decisions, they tend to make a lot of them.
Not only is it out of date, they did all this without testing or checking their backup, obviously.
So that's massive error #4 thus far.
-
UPDATE: They decided to restore from a backup and have already replaced the nas! They found a backup 2 days old!!!
-
That's better. Did they learn a lesson here or did they blow it off?
-
no, they've learnt a lesson and are now discussing an automatic daily backup - offsite and on premise.
I also learnt from your responses. thanks -
@Joel said:
no, they've learnt a lesson and are now discussing an automatic daily backup - offsite and on premise.
I also learnt from your responses. thanksThe problem that still persists here is you are always saying they did it.
If this is true, then this means that you need to fire them as they are doing nothing but wasting your time. Time that you could better spend looking for a new client or better serving a different client that will actually pay you to do the job they hired you for. -
We dont officially support them but charge for the time they bother us! They didnt want a full service with us. If they did they wouldnt have been in this mess in the first instance and they certainly wouldnt be allowed to unplug or touch servers/hardware without our say so!!!!
But you are correct! The dangerous people are those who THINK they know how things work and go gung-ho with the troubleshooting!
They have been charged accordingly for our time
