Similar to the post in the forum at https://forums.intel.com/s/question/0D50P0000490VxbSAE/vroc-raid5-parity-errors, we get dozens to hundreds of Parity errors following every Intel Rapid Storage Technology Verification and Repair run on multiple computers running RAID5. The drives all test out fine and I don’t see any parity errors if put those same drives in RAID1 configurations. The drives are mostly Samsung Evo 860 SSD drives (SATA, not NVMe). There are some EVO 850 drives, but some systems are running exclusively new 860 drives and experience the same problems.
We only see these errors in RAID5 volumes with more than 3 drives. At only 3 drives, no errors. And the number of errors increases significantly (from a couple dozen to a few hundred) when moving from 4 drives to 5.
As far as we know, we have not had any problems with the RAID volumes. So we’re not sure if this is a reporting problem and everything is fine, or if this is an indication that Intel’s RAID5 system is fatally flawed and can’t support more than 3 drives (which would be terrible, because performance increases on SATA with more volumes and the chief benefit of RAID5 over other forms of RAID is to lower the cost of parity by only using a single drive of many, vs RAID1 which uses half the drives for party).
Also note that when IRST Verification and Repair runs, the initial report, when it starts, always shows 0 errors. It’s only the final report AFTER it runs that reports the parity errors. This is part of what makes us think it could be a reporting problem, rather than actual errors.
Regardless of whether this is a reporting problem or an actual RAID issue, because these drives appear in all other checks to be fine (including in IRST arrays with 3 or fewer drives), this appears to be a software or Intel firmware problem for the Rapid Storage Technology support for RAID5, where it fails with more than 3 drives.
Here’s the relevant segment of the report after running Verification and Repair, this one with 5 drives:
Volume name: SSD RAID5
Status: Normal
Type: RAID 5
Size: 1,907,750 MB
System volume: Yes
Data stripe size: 32 KB
Write-back cache: Write through
Initialized: Yes
Parity errors: 527
Blocks with media errors: 0
Physical sector size: 512 Bytes
Logical sector size: 512 Bytes
Here’s another from a different system with 4 drives:
Volume name: RAID5 System
Status: Normal
Type: RAID 5
Size: 1,430,812 MB
System volume: Yes
Data stripe size: 32 KB
Write-back cache: Write through
Initialized: Yes
Parity errors: 20
Blocks with media errors: 0
Physical sector size: 512 Bytes
Logical sector size: 512 Bytes
Please advise:
- Is this a serious error that we should shut down the arrays, or is this just a reporting bug and we should ignore the parity errors (if it is just a reporting error, please fix)?
- Is there a fix or work-around that still includes the use of RAID5 with 4 or 5 drives?
- If we need to wait for an updated IRST or driver update, is there a scheduled release date?
on
May 17, 2002, 12:00 AM PDT
Picking apart parity problems
What you don’t know about parity errors can hurt you. So, while a fundamental understanding of the different RAID levels is good, knowing how to diagnose and prevent parity errors is better. Scott Lowe teaches you both in this Daily Drill Down.
Anyone who has worked with RAID (redundant array of independent disks) has heard the term “parity.” While most IT pros understand the general concept behind the word, many would be hard-pressed to define exactly what parity is or how to fix problems associated with it when they occur. Parity is a form of error correction commonly used in certain levels of RAID and works to reconstruct data on a drive that has failed in an array. In this article, I will be focusing on parity problems commonly associated with RAID levels 3, 4, 5, and 6. The remaining RAID levels either do not use parity or are not as commercially viable as levels 3 through 6.
First, a lesson on the different RAID levels
Different levels of RAID make use of physical disks in diverse ways. Each RAID level that supports error correction (parity) uses the capability in different ways as well. Table A explains these differences, as well as what can happen when a drive or drives in a RAID array fail.
Table A
|
Common name |
Parity used |
Description |
Array’s capacity |
Data reliability |
Minimum drives required |
Failure condition |
|
Disk striping |
No |
The data is broken down into blocks, and each block is written to a separate disk. Since the I/O load is spread across each disk, this RAID level performs efficiently both reading and writing data to and from the array. |
Individual disk capacity multiplied by number of disks |
Low |
2 |
When one drive fails, the entire array is compromised. |
|
Disk mirroring |
No |
All data is duplicated on both disks. This RAID level requires an even number of disks. |
Number of disks divided by 2 |
Very high |
2 |
When both drives fail, the data is lost. |
|
Hamming Code ECC |
No |
There are two sets of drives: data drives and ECC drives. Each data word has its ECC data recorded on ECC disks. |
Number of disks divided by 2 |
Very high |
2 |
Because of its ECC encoding method, it is very inefficient and expensive. RAID 2 is not commercially accepted. |
|
Parallel transfer disks with parity |
Yes |
Data sector is subdivided and distributed across all data disks. Redundant information is stored on a dedicated parity disk. |
(N-1) disks |
Very high |
3 |
When more then one drive fails, the array is compromised. |
|
Independent data disks with shared parity blocks |
Yes |
Each block is written onto a data disk. Parity for same rank blocks is generated on Writes, recorded on the parity disk, and checked on Reads. |
(N-1) disks |
Very high |
3 |
When more then one drive fails, the array is compromised. |
|
Independent access array without rotating parity |
Yes |
Data sectors are distributed as with disk striping. Redundant information is interspersed with user data. |
(N-1) disks |
Very high |
3 |
When more then one drive fails, the array is compromised. |
|
Independent Data disks with two independent distributed parity schemes |
Yes |
Like RAID 5, parity is striped across the disks in RAID 6. However, in RAID 6, parity is written twice. |
(N-2) disks |
Very high |
3 |
Depends on implementation, although I know of no RAID 6 implementations. |
In RAID 3 (Figure A), each file is broken up into blocks of identical size, which are then written to a disk in the array. The size of the block depends on the number of data disks in the array. With RAID 3, there is also a disk devoted to parity.
| Figure A |
 |
Under RAID 4 (Figure B), an entire block of data is written to a disk before writing the next block to the next disk. This results in a file being written across multiple disks but not necessarily evenly. Like RAID 3, RAID 4 uses a separate parity disk.
| Figure B |
 |
Like RAID 4, RAID 5 (Figure C) writes blocks of data to this disk before moving on, resulting in the possibility that one disk may store a larger chunk of data than another disk from the same file. Unlike RAID 4, however, RAID 5 parity is also striped across the disks. To achieve its level of resiliency, RAID 5 requires the overhead equivalent of one of the disks in the array for parity. The more disks that are added to the array, the lower the percentage of overhead. For example, with three disks, one-third of the space is dedicated to parity. However, with six disks, only one-sixth is used.
| Figure C |
 |
RAID 6 (Figure D) works almost identically to RAID 5. In RAID 6, the parity is also striped across all of the disks in the array, but it is written twice, which allows for the failure of more than one disk. Unfortunately, it also requires twice as much overhead as RAID 5.
| Figure D |
 |
Why use parity at all?
It looks like parity can make things more complicated with a RAID array, so why not just stick with something like RAID 0 or RAID 1, and leave parity out of the equation? For starters, RAID 0 gives no fault tolerance, so it is not suitable for high-availability environments. RAID 1 does not use parity and is very inefficient with its use of disk space, as it requires a full 50 percent of the available storage since the data is simply mirrored. Using parity and RAID 3, 4, or 5, a disk array can be created that is highly available and that can tolerate the loss of one of the disks. This is because the data can be rebuilt using the parity information stored in the array, and these RAID levels make much more efficient use of the available disk space.
What happens when parity goes bad?
With a single drive failure under any of RAID levels 1, 3, 4, 5, or 6, the failed drive can be replaced. The RAID array controller will automatically regenerate the data on the new drive using the parity information from the other drives and restore fault tolerance to the entire array.
Although RAID provides an extra level of protection in the event of drive failure, parity errors can crop up. When you encounter a parity error, it basically means there is bad data on the drive. If the data cannot be corrected, it may be time to load the data off to a backup tape. How will you know if the data cannot be corrected? When you open a file or run an application that attempts to read that particular portion of the disk, the file will not open, or the application will either crash or not run at all. In many instances, you will be notified via an error message that there was a problem reading from the disk. Often, the problem will become evident during the system backup, when all of the data on the disk is read in one sweep. In a RAID array, when a parity error is detected, the source data is reread to try to get it right.
With or without RAID, parity errors can be generated due to a number of factors other than a failed disk. For example, if the drive cables are not properly connected or shielded, or the wrong type of cable is being used to connect the disks to the controller, parity errors may occur. If you’re noticing a significant number of parity errors, try swapping the cables and testing the controller card to make sure it has not gone bad. Check the SCSI terminators as well to see if one may have come loose. Most RAID controllers come with diagnostics programs that can do some of the troubleshooting, so be sure to make good use of any of these packages as well.
You should also investigate the physical connections to your SCSI devices to determine if they’re the source of the parity problems. First, make sure that you are using the right SCSI cable. Ram Electronics has pictures of many common SCSI connectors as well as the SCSI Trade Association (STA)-endorsed terms and specifications for each type of connector. Most internal SCSI cables are of the ribbon variety, with any number of individual wires running through the ribbon. If even one of those wires is exposed, shorting out, cut, or not fully attached to the connector on the end, it may create data transfer problems. Finally, make sure that the SCSI cable is properly connected to both the controller card and the drive, and that the pins on the devices line up with the pins on the SCSI connector.
Testing a controller card is a little more difficult. The easiest way is to use the diagnostic program that comes with many SCSI and RAID adapters. During system installation for certain servers, such as those from Dell and Compaq, utilities are written to a small partition on a disk array. Among these utilities are programs that can test the array controller, and you can run these programs at system boot time by pressing a key combination on the keyboard. This key combination interrupts the boot process and instead runs the system utilities. Newer systems also include Windows-based array utilities that can perform many of the same functions. Dell, for example, includes its Array Manager product for servers shipping with an array controller that you can install with the rest of the system management suite.
A second controller testing method involves moving the controller to another machine and testing it with different hardware. This is definitely not preferable, as it could result in more downtime and assumes that you have spare hardware lying about that you can use to test this theory.
How does the parity become corrupted?
There are a number of possible causes for the corruption of parity on a disk:
- System crashes: When a system crashes, any data that was not written to disk is lost. In the event that data was being written to a RAID array, it is possible that either the data or the parity was written to disk, but not both. In a situation such as this, you can’t rely on the parity to reconstruct the data on the disk. Reducing the number of system crashes by making use of UPS units, redundant power supplies, and so on will help to protect against this type of parity corruption.
- Uncorrectable bit errors: A hard disk in an array is nothing more than a bunch of magnetic bits that gradually lose the ability to hold data over time. Eventually, bit errors are detected when an attempt is made to read data back from the drive. Many RAID arrays now make use of embedded software that monitors the individual disks and informs an operator when it feels that a disk is about to fail. When I am informed that there is an impending disk failure, I generally run a diagnostic on the RAID array to make sure that the controller is working properly and verify that the error message was indeed correct. If the verification comes back with a problem, I either replace the RAID card, which rarely happens, or replace any drives that the diagnostics identify as bad.
- A disk failure: Like a system crash, a disk failure can have a negative impact on parity. Disks can fail for a variety of reasons: age, overuse, excessive powering up and down, or power surges. When a disk in an array fails, replace it immediately and run a diagnostic on the array. A single disk failure is an indication that there may be more to come.
- Other possible causes: If the array checks out okay and the cables have been tested, the power supply in the system may be delivering too much power to a disk in the array, causing parity problems. This can be tested with a voltmeter (be careful, as electrocution is always a possibility when working with a voltmeter). First, disconnect the system from the power source and insert the probes of the voltmeter into the socket. Next, verify the output against the local standard (110 to 120 volts in North America). Once you plug the system back into the wall, you can disconnect the drive array from the power supply and use the voltmeter to test the individual power leads in the same way. Exact power specifications for the leads can be found in the system guide or on the manufacturer’s Web site.
Additional reading
Luckily, most of today’s RAID and SCSI controllers are very good about making sure parity errors are not introduced onto the disk. However, if this does happen, follow the suggestions above to minimize the risk of data corruption and failure. If you are not using a parity-enabled RAID scheme on a mission-critical system, do a cost/benefit analysis and get RAID installed, as it will be worth much more than the cost of a disk failure. An excellent discussion of RAID advantages and disadvantages can be found at Advanced Computer & Network Corporation’s RAID.edu Web site.
-
Data Centers
-
#1
Board and drives pass all tests and seem to work OK in IDE mode, but configuring the Intel Raid controller for RAID mode causes the drives to eventually fail when running benchmarks or performing large file copies between drives. This has occured with multple Intel driver versions and board BIOS versions.
Anyone else reporting this issue or know any resolutions?
MOBO = ASUS P5E3 Premium WiFi
BIOS used = 0401 or 0505
CPU = Intel Quad QX9770
Memory = OCZ Platinum-1600 2x2GB
OS = Vista x64 SP1
Drives = 2x raid 0 arrays 4 x 300gb WD velociraptors
Intel Storage Matrix Controller ver 8.2.0.1001 (June 2008)
Errors reported in windows log files include
a) parity error on device 0 (iastor.sys raid driver)
b) iastor.sys has failed to respond in the time allocated
The intel raid monitoring app will eventually report that one of the drives in each array is failing.
After drive corruption, wiping the drives (writing zero to ALL sectors), allows them to be reinitialized and reformatted.
Running IDE mode now with no problems.
Any suggestions appreciated.
Wait for new drivers? Give up on MOBO raid and buy a dedicated controller?
-
- Sep 11, 2008
-
- 1
-
- 0
-
- 18,510
- 0
-
#2
I cant say anything about parity errors or log files, because i have no understanding of them.
Anyway, after some time of use (1 week after fresh install) my system will sometimes become unresponsive and i need to reboot. After this has happend a few times one of my drives will give a error on the raid status screen at bootup. The system keeps booting from de raid-device but the next week or sometime later the system wont boot anymore as the array seems to have fallen appart and the system doesnt recognize the drives as being a raid device. (no bootdevice found)
My thoughts about what could cause the problems:
-Memory issures
-One bad diskdrive, (badblocks or something (parity erros??))
-Bad raid controller (Saw a intel report about some controllers with bad ram, will check bacjk to that)
-Bad mobo some how runs drives in IDE mode at bootup (One time the array showed broken at the raid status screen at bootup and the system gave mesage «no bootdevice found». Somehow after a second reboot the raid status screen showed the proper raid setup again, and booted again. Aint the weird???)
-Bad serial interface cables. These things are realy crapy some times and get loose quiet easily. Have change them a couple of times but the error status keep comming back.
I have not that good computer understanding so the things that can cause these problems my be impossible, anyhow i just dont know realy….
Does someone know a program to check if a disk is bad?
Lian Li PC-V2100BplusII
Enermax Galaxy 1000W
ASUS P5E3 Premium Wifi-AP @n
Intel Q9450
Corsair TWINX4096-1600C7DHXIN ver3.1
MSI NX8800GTS 320MB DDR3
2x WD VelociRaptor Riad 0
Vista Ultimate 64bit OEM
-
- Apr 1, 2008
-
- 22
-
- 0
-
- 18,510
- 0
-
#3
Whats interesting is that its in Vista 64 just like the previous posts. Other drives work fine including a pair of 74gb raptors and 1tb Caviar Blacks. Man I hate when companies don’t do their homework!
-
- Jun 18, 2008
-
- 7,676
-
- 0
-
- 31,160
- 147
-
#4
-
- Apr 26, 2002
-
- 193
-
- 0
-
- 18,680
- 0
-
#5
Rather than do that…I scrapped the board, thinking I’d rather get a new board. So I ordered the EVGA X58 mb and an i7 920 processor…put everything together…installed Vista 64 Bit on 6 GB of memory…stripe sizw 64kb…and after two days of fresh install…CRASH! It is NOT the mb. My memory tests out…I think it is the VelociRaptors themselves. One is OEM and the other retail. Seems that there has to be some imbalance that occurs. HOWEVER…one major difference between the P5E and the X58…the new board is still running and I can boot into windows. Ran HD tach and my raid speeds seem normal, etc. I truly believe that something is different with the two drives that causes this….
Also…I, twice, broke up the ARRAY and tested the drives with WD Diagnostic tools…both drives PASSED with error code 000 Four times each….??????????????
Bob
-
#6
Searching for this issue on the net, it’s pretty common — you will find more forums with users having the same issue.
This seems similar to what was happening with the Seagate 1.5TB drives, which Seagate issued a firmware update for. So far WD doesn’t seem to be acknowledging that this is an issue.
-
- Apr 26, 2002
-
- 193
-
- 0
-
- 18,680
- 0
-
#7
Western Digital will not acknowledge the issue, but they actually offered to replace a perfectly working drive. I really wonder if they get it. Also…found an old post that may shed some light…
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/wd-raptor-nvidia-g80-dont-play-nice-with-vista,review-2336.html
WD didn’t acknowledge it then…and it looks like a few generations later…could be something…
-
- Apr 26, 2002
-
- 193
-
- 0
-
- 18,680
- 0
-
#8
-
- Oct 20, 2008
-
- 250
-
- 8
-
- 18,785
- 0
-
#9
but it never fails any RAM test or Prime95 tests. I’m tempted to get two more Samsung 1TB drive and swap these out. The DFI and GB board have both killed a single 1TB drive I have. It did it just last night while running the HD Tune and copying files. Now shows as unknown in drive manager. The DFI board was much worse and I’d get the RAID errors on both RIAD volumes. Maybe it was just the OS reinstall after getting the new MB. Maybe as the OS data get more and more corrupted you get more RAID errors. My system was error free for about a month after the new MB and OS install. ???? This sucks.
-
- Apr 26, 2002
-
- 193
-
- 0
-
- 18,680
- 0
-
#10
OK…so my new system has the following:
EVGA X58 SLI Motherboard
Intel i7 920
Two WD VelociRaptors (300 GB each) in RAID 0
6 GB of Corsair PC1600 DDR3 SDRAM (3 x 2 for Triple Channel)
EVGA GTX 260 / 216 Superclocked
It was killing me that I had what I thought was the same issue on this board as I did the P5E, but I sorted out the issues over a three week period with three total installs of Vista Ultimate 64 bit on the new system…and came to the conclusion that the tech at Asus was wrong about the Southbridge going out on my P5E. First, let me say that the 4 GB of OCZ PC8500 that I had on the board, did go and die on me…causing some issues. At the same time…let me elaborate on an issue, that I have solved that will stop some people from having blue screens and RAID array’s show errors, etc.
Seems that Vista has an extra setting within the Hardware settings for hard drives and RAID arrays. Go to COMPUTER…right click on your hard drive (s) …Hardware tab…Double click your HDD or ARRAY and you will see a policies tab. On the policies tab…there is a setting to Enable Enhanced Performance (which is really a way of telling Windows to very aggressively cache writes. When In RAID…DO NOT ENABLE THIS! RAID is fast as it is…by enabling…the VelociRaptors will do wierd things…and then blue screen. This issue is not only with the VelociRaptor…but many other hard drives. You get a blue screen and on reboot…you will see that one of your RAID drives is showing in pink: AN ERROR HAS OCCURED. Not fun…takes breaking up the Array to get the error message to go away. Then…I tested the drives, singularly at least four times each…and neither would show errors. This is where Asus stepped in and said that the Southbridge was going on the P5E. WRONG! There is nothing wrong with the P5E Southbridge…so I ended up upgrading my motherboard, processor and memory for nothing (except for the bragging rights to the i7).
OK…so now I decided to put the P5E back to work…I always liked this board…troubles and all…it is one fast MB. In essence, I rebuilt my wife’s machine this morning. She ended up with the original system that I build with the board.
Asus P5E with Intel Q9450
4 GB of OCZ PC8500 5-5-5-15
EVGA 8800 GTS 512
The Soundcard that came with the Motherboard (FX) PCIe
Two 160 GB Seagate 7200 RPM HDD’s in RAID 0
Etc…
I have to tell you…I installed Vista Home Premium SP-1 64 bit on the machine this morning and it is humming. Took OCZ a week to turn around brand new memory to replace the bad chips…I kept it sitting in a drawer during the holidays..and it drove me crazy that the P5E was back in it’s box and not doing it’s job. So, based on all that I have learned from the experiences with the P5E and X58…be careful on some of the settings you use in Vista…can come back and bite you. I am going to let Asus know my findings…since I never sent the board in for replacement (would have been a waste of time and money to do so). This board took a pounding and came back out the other side…alive and kicking. I will have many ideas and thoughts to share…I want to thank those who appreciated what I have share til now…and wanted to start by sharing this. There is documentation thoughout the Internet about RAID and Vista and how this «Error Occured» issue has come about. There are many who have not figured it out and want to blame the motherboard makers (not all Asus or EVGA) or the hard drive makers. It’s the software, plain and simple…pushing the envelope on something that is already breaking the barrier…
That’s it. I am error free on my EVGA X58 system AND the P5E lives and breathes fire for three weeks, error free now. Also…Intel has released new Matrix drivers for RAID. 8.7.1007. I have installed them, but still have yet to initialize the extra setting in Vista for Enhanced Cache Writing. Give it a try…what do you have to lose?
-
- Oct 20, 2008
-
- 250
-
- 8
-
- 18,785
- 0
-
#11
Also, the SATA-2 spec has a per channel bandwidth at 300MBps but my 200MBps-ish VR RAID-0 is not supported??? Looks like the setting is in XP also. Under Policies, Write cashing and Safe Removal there is a check box for Enable write caching.
Not at home now but I think there is a write caching setting per RAID volume in the Intel RAID software that is disabled by default and (I would think) take precedents over the OS setting.
-
- Apr 26, 2002
-
- 193
-
- 0
-
- 18,680
- 0
-
#12
-
- Oct 20, 2008
-
- 250
-
- 8
-
- 18,785
- 0
-
#13
I’ll be sure to give it a shot. Have you been running checkdisk? It seems like every time I run it there is always something it fixes. Indexing error or space marked as used and so on.
-
- Apr 26, 2002
-
- 193
-
- 0
-
- 18,680
- 0
-
#14
Guest
Guest
-
#15
That’s it. I am error free on my EVGA X58 system AND the P5E lives and breathes fire for three weeks, error free now. Also…Intel has released new Matrix drivers for RAID. 8.7.1007. I have installed them, but still have yet to initialize the extra setting in Vista for Enhanced Cache Writing. Give it a try…what do you have to lose?
I’m also error-free since two weeks running the new drivers!
Sad but true to wait over half a year for that fix.
I found much users having the same issue, allway the same sys-config:
— Vista64
— X48 (proberly X58 too)
— VelocyRaptor Raid0 stripe
-
- Oct 20, 2008
-
- 250
-
- 8
-
- 18,785
- 0
-
#16
I’m also error-free since two weeks running the new drivers!
Sad but true to wait over half a year for that fix.I found much users having the same issue, allway the same sys-config:
— Vista64
— X48 (proberly X58 too)
— VelocyRaptor Raid0 stripe
I’m running Vista32 with the “New Drivers!” but I still get random errors. Also, if I copy a really large amount of data from the RAID 0 VelocyRaptors to any other drive I have I get RAID errors every time.
-
- Apr 26, 2002
-
- 193
-
- 0
-
- 18,680
- 0
-
#17
Guest
Guest
-
#18
This problem is killing me, the fact is that I thought i resolved it some months ago than bump again..
I have a AsusP5K3 Deluxe and 2 WD Raptor74 in raid 0, Vista 32.
Everytime I boot the pc I fear looking on the boot screen for the pink»ERROR OCURED», like looking at a ghost. Sometime you can boot slowly, but after that you cannot boot anymore, and start over.
The first time it happened after installing the latest version of intel matrix manager, it took some time to understand that you should install the version that you see on the bios screen of ICH9 which is 7.5.0.1017, so I just installed the intel drivers that were on the asus site and not the latest one, on intel site.
As I said everything was fine, until now, when doing some restart bump..
The problem here is that you dont know if you fixed it, because it can happen even after months. This was my first Asus board, after a nForce4 Gigabyte which could burn mosfets in flame, but never burn a raid array. But maybe its an intel , and non asus issue.
I just want to ask, what if not istalling intel matrix manager, because I think that this is the issue, do you lost anything in performance?
As for Asus, they can update the bios portion of intel ICH9, by the way have anybody experienced their support care? Its really funny, its seems like chating with small kids..
They even said not to use raid array!!! for what the f.. I bought a 250$ board?!
I never enabled «advance performance» on the Raid properties in Device Manager, but write caching is enabled by default..
Has anybody experience this without installing imatrix storage manager??
-
- Mar 31, 2009
-
- 1
-
- 0
-
- 18,510
- 0
-
#19
I never enabled «advance performance» on the Raid properties in Device Manager, but write caching is enabled by default..
Has anybody experience this without installing imatrix storage manager??
Hi I have been experiencing the same without installing the storage manager. I thought it was happening because I didn’t instal the storage manager but I was wrong!
I lost a lot of valuable data when I faced this issue before. The raid controller wasn’t able to detect my drives. When I contacted Seagate, they told me this was a firmware issue and told me to update the firmware. I wasn’t satisfied and I replaced my disks with new ones (Their firmware was the latest). After a fresh install I saw the «Error Occured» message. Then I decided to install the latest MSM and marked the failing drive as Normal. Everything went fine for a week, however tonight, MSM told me that one of my drives in the raid0 volume is failing.
Writeback caching, enhanced performance and hard drive data cache is not enabled.
A few moments ago, I enabled the hard drive data cache (Right Click Array_000 > Enable HDD Data Cache) and marked the failing drive as normal.
This is driving me crazy!
Vista Ultimate 32Bit
Gigabyte GA-P35C-DS3R
4 GB Kingston DDR2 Memory at 800Mhz
2 Seagate XXXX.11 500 GB SATA Drives
Intel E6750 CPU at 2.66 Ghz (No overclocking)
FSP Power Supply
-
- Apr 26, 2002
-
- 193
-
- 0
-
- 18,680
- 0
-
#20
32 Bit: http://downloadcenter.intel.com/filter_results.aspx?strTypes=all&ProductID=2101&OSFullName=Windows+Vista*+32&lang=eng&strOSs=164&submit=Go%21]
64 bit: http://downloadcenter.intel.com/Filter_Results.aspx?strOSs=All&strTypes=All&ProductID=2101&lang=eng&OSFullName=All Operating Systems
I am running Vista Ultimate 64 Bit on my EVGA ICH10 Motherboard since Jan with No errors, and I installed Vista Home Premium on my Asus P5E with two 160 GB Seagate 7000.9 drives since Jan as well with No errors. I truly believe that Intel has only fixed the driver issue since the 1007’s and so far the 1009’s look good, enhanced write caching and all
-
- Oct 20, 2008
-
- 250
-
- 8
-
- 18,785
- 0
-
#21
I saw that Gigabyte posted (3/19/09) a new BIOS for my board and it had an update to the Intel AHCI ROM. I can no longer force RAID errors by copying my test folder. I’m sure I’ve just jinxed it by posting this but I’m keeping my fingers crossed.
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
T
|
Question adding a new M.2 SSD to my motherboard causes PC to receive a boot error | Storage | 6 | Feb 1, 2023 |
|
|
[SOLVED] Repairing Disc Errors This May Take Over an Hour to Complete? | Storage | 22 | Jan 31, 2023 |
|
R
|
Question Seagate HDD in intermittent state (can’t initialize) (I/O ERROR) after I cancelled their software’s sanitization progress | Storage | 0 | Jan 26, 2023 |
|
D
|
Question Standard NVM Express Controller error — NVMe drive not detected in BIOS ? | Storage | 2 | Jan 14, 2023 |
|
S
|
[SOLVED] Is there a way to fix HDD CRC error | Storage | 1 | Jan 2, 2023 |
|
J
|
Question Really struggling to clone my hard disk on to SSD with Macrium Reflect , Error 0 and 23 | Storage | 9 | Dec 8, 2022 |
|
I
|
Question Why do we erratically get BSOD 14c error only on multiple HDD/SSD, with M.2 SSD as Boot drive ? | Storage | 5 | Dec 2, 2022 |
|
|
Question HDD i/o error | Storage | 2 | Nov 29, 2022 |
|
T
|
Question Whea uncorrectable error Stop Code Bluescreen | Storage | 3 | Nov 24, 2022 |
|
F
|
Discussion Crucial BX500 SSD Not Accessible and want to use | Storage | 24 | Nov 23, 2022 |
- Advertising
- Cookies Policies
- Privacy
- Term & Conditions
- Topics
Problem
The adapter event log reports:
Consistency Check found inconsistent parity on VD 00/0 at strip xxxxx.
After several of these messages the event log reports:
Warning Consistency Check inconsistency logging disabled on %s (too many inconsistencies)
Users might see these entries in the IBM MegaRAID Storage Manager (MSM) event log, or when running the ‘MegaRAID Command Line Interface (MegaCLI)’ command:
>MegaCli -FwTermLog -Dsply -aALL
Time stamp Errorcode/msg
YY/MM/DD HH:MM
12/01/28 3:08:10: 63=Consistency Check found inconsistent parity on VD 00/0 at strip 32109
12/01/28 3:08:10: 63=Consistency Check found inconsistent parity on VD 00/0 at strip 3210a
12/01/28 3:08:11: 63=Consistency Check found inconsistent parity on VD 00/0 at strip 32179
(See Symptom section for full text of log)
Resolving The Problem
Source
RETAIN tip: H207600
Symptom
The adapter event log reports:
| Consistency Check found inconsistent parity on VD 00/0 at strip xxxxx. |
After several of these messages the event log reports:
| Warning Consistency Check inconsistency logging disabled on %s (too many inconsistencies) |
Users might see these entries in the IBM MegaRAID Storage
Manager (MSM) event log, or when running the ‘MegaRAID Command Line
Interface (MegaCLI)’ command:
| >MegaCli -FwTermLog -Dsply -aALL Time stamp Errorcode/msg YY/MM/DD HH:MM 12/01/28 3:08:10: 63=Consistency Check found inconsistent parity on VD 00/0 at strip 32109 12/01/28 3:08:10: 63=Consistency Check found inconsistent parity on VD 00/0 at strip 3210a 12/01/28 3:08:11: 63=Consistency Check found inconsistent parity on VD 00/0 at strip 32179 12/01/28 3:08:11: 63=Consistency Check found inconsistent parity on VD 00/0 at strip 321aa 12/01/28 3:08:13: 63=Consistency Check found inconsistent parity on VD 00/0 at strip 3258e 12/01/28 3:08:19: 63=Consistency Check found inconsistent parity on VD 00/0 at strip 32e90 12/01/28 3:08:19: 63=Consistency Check found inconsistent parity on VD 00/0 at strip 32e93 12/01/28 3:08:27: 63=Consistency Check found inconsistent parity on VD 00/0 at strip 33b5c 12/01/28 3:08:28: 63=Consistency Check found inconsistent parity on VD 00/0 at strip 33c7c 12/01/28 3:08:29: 64=Consistency Check inconsistency logging disabled on VD 00/0 (too many inconsistencies) |
Affected Configurations
The system can be any of the following IBM servers:
- System x3100 M4, type 2582, any model
- System x3200 M3, type 7327, any model
- System x3200 M3, type 7328, any model
- System x3300 M4, type 7382, any model
- System x3400 M3, type 7378, any model
- System x3400 M3, type 7379, any model
- System x3500 M3, type 7380, any model
- System x3500 M4, type 7383, any model
- System x3530 M4, type 7160, any model
- System x3550 M3, type 4254, any model
- System x3550 M3, type 7944, any model
- System x3550 M4, type 5459, any model
- System x3550 M4, type 7914, any model
- System x3630 M3, type 7377, any model
- System x3630 M4, type 7158, any model
- System x3650 M3, type 4255, any model
- System x3650 M3, type 5454, any model
- System x3650 M3, type 7945, any model
- System x3650 M4, type 7915, any model
- System x3690 X5, type 7147, any model
- System x3690 X5, type 7148, any model
- System x3690 X5, type 7149, any model
- System x3690 X5, type 7192, any model
- System x3755 M3, type 7164, any model
- System x3850 X5, type 7143, any model
- System x3850 X5, type 7145, any model
- System x3850 X5, type 7146, any model
- System x3850 X5, type 7191, any model
- System x3950 X5, type 7143, any model
The system is configured with one or more of the following IBM
options:
- ServeRAID B5015 Solid-State Drive Controller, option 46M0969,
any replacement part number - ServeRAID C100 for System x, option 81Y4475
- ServeRAID C105 for IBM Flex System, option 90Y4430, any
replacement part number - ServeRAID M1015 SAS/SATA Controller, option 46M0831, any
replacement part number - ServeRAID M1100 Series Zero Cache/RAID 5 Upgrade for IBM System
x, option 81Y4542, any replacement part number - ServeRAID M1115 SAS/SATA Controller for IBM System x, option
81Y4448, any replacement part number - ServeRAID M5014 SAS/SATA Controller, option 46M0916, any
replacement part number - ServeRAID M5015 SAS/SATA Controller, option 46M0829, any
replacement part number - ServeRAID M5016 SAS/SATA Controller for IBM System x, option
90Y4304, any replacement part number - ServeRAID M5025 SAS/SATA Controller, option 46M0830, any
replacement part number - ServeRAID M5110 SAS/SATA Controller Card, option 81Y4481, any
replacement part number - ServeRAID M5110 SAS/SATA Controller for IBM System x, any
replacement part number - ServeRAID M5110e SAS/SATA Controller for IBM System x,
on-board, any embedded - ServeRAID M5115 SAS/SATA Controller, option 90Y4390, any
replacement part number - ServeRAID M5120 SAS/SATA Controller for IBM System x, option
81Y4478, any replacement part number
This tip is not software specific.
Workaround
Reduce disk paging by:
- Using a cached IBM ServeRAID adapter
- Increasing the amount of system memory
Additional Information
There are two primary causes that contribute to this
message.
Before examining these causes, it is important to understand
what this message means for a RAID-1. While technically correct,
this message is misleading because RAID-1 has no parity on the
disk, such as RAID-5 has.
A parity error reported for a RAID-1 configuration rarely means
that the disk is bad. It means that the primary and secondary disk
do not match. To maintain high performance, the parity from a block
of data is generated for the primary disk and for the secondary
disk by the Redundant Array of Independent Disks (RAID)
controller.
These two parity values are compared, and if they do not match
the consistency check warning message is reported. This method is
much faster than comparing each byte of the primary disk to each
byte of the secondary disk.
Causes:
- It is common to see this message immediately after a new RAID-1
is configured, or after a disk is replaced. - During rare instances of background surface analysis,
initialization and I/O writes occurring on RAID-1 or RAID-1+0
volumes can form an exact sequence of events that lead a RAID-1 to
have temporary inconsistencies. They are fixed during a consistency
check, even after the logging stops. The events necessary to cause
this condition are:- Uncached RAID adapter or RAID in Write Through Mode.
- Heavy disk paging due to high memory usage or not enough system
memory. - Extremely high disk traffic.
- Using Microsoft Windows versions earlier than Windows 8 and
Windows 2012.
Note: This has not been reported on any Linux-based
systems.
Document Location
Worldwide
Operating System
System x:Windows NT
System x:Windows 2000
System x:Windows XP
System x:Windows Server 2003
System x:Windows Server 2003 x86-64
System x:Windows PE
System x:Windows XP x86-64
System x Hardware Options:Windows Server 2003
System x Hardware Options:Windows Server 2003 x86-64
System x Hardware Options:Windows XP
System x Hardware Options:Windows XP x86-64
System x Hardware Options:Windows 2000
System x Hardware Options:Windows NT
System x Hardware Options:Windows PE
System x:Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition
System x:Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition x86-64
Lenovo x86 servers:Windows Server 2003
Lenovo x86 servers:Windows Server 2003 x86-64
Lenovo x86 servers:Windows Server 2008
Lenovo x86 servers:Windows Server 2008 x86-64 & 2008 R2
[{«Type»:»HW»,»Business Unit»:{«code»:»BU016″,»label»:»Multiple Vendor Support»},»Product»:{«code»:»HWMJ0″,»label»:»Lenovo x86 servers->Lenovo System x3750 M4″},»Platform»:[{«code»:»PF033″,»label»:»Windows»}],»Line of Business»:{«code»:»»,»label»:»»}},{«Type»:»HW»,»Business Unit»:{«code»:»BU016″,»label»:»Multiple Vendor Support»},»Product»:{«code»:»HWXB8″,»label»:»Lenovo x86 servers->Lenovo System x3300 M4″},»Platform»:[{«code»:»PF033″,»label»:»Windows»}],»Line of Business»:{«code»:»»,»label»:»»}},{«Type»:»HW»,»Business Unit»:{«code»:»BU016″,»label»:»Multiple Vendor Support»},»Product»:{«code»:»HWXB9″,»label»:»Lenovo x86 servers->Lenovo System x3530 M4″},»Platform»:[{«code»:»PF033″,»label»:»Windows»}],»Line of Business»:{«code»:»»,»label»:»»}},{«Type»:»HW»,»Business Unit»:{«code»:»BU016″,»label»:»Multiple Vendor Support»},»Product»:{«code»:»HWXC1″,»label»:»Lenovo x86 servers->Lenovo System x3550 M4″},»Platform»:[{«code»:»PF033″,»label»:»Windows»}],»Line of Business»:{«code»:»»,»label»:»»}},{«Type»:»HW»,»Business Unit»:{«code»:»BU016″,»label»:»Multiple Vendor Support»},»Product»:{«code»:»HWXC2″,»label»:»Lenovo x86 servers->Lenovo System x3630 M4″},»Platform»:[{«code»:»PF033″,»label»:»Windows»}],»Line of Business»:{«code»:»»,»label»:»»}},{«Type»:»HW»,»Business Unit»:{«code»:»BU016″,»label»:»Multiple Vendor Support»},»Product»:{«code»:»HWXC3″,»label»:»Lenovo x86 servers->Lenovo System x3650 M4 BD»},»Platform»:[{«code»:»PF033″,»label»:»Windows»}],»Line of Business»:{«code»:»»,»label»:»»}},{«Type»:»HW»,»Business Unit»:{«code»:»BU016″,»label»:»Multiple Vendor Support»},»Product»:{«code»:»HWXC4″,»label»:»Lenovo x86 servers->Lenovo System x3650 M4 HD»},»Platform»:[{«code»:»PF033″,»label»:»Windows»}],»Line of Business»:{«code»:»»,»label»:»»}},{«Type»:»HW»,»Business Unit»:{«code»:»BU016″,»label»:»Multiple Vendor Support»},»Product»:{«code»:»HWXX0″,»label»:»Lenovo x86 servers->Lenovo System x3500 M4″},»Platform»:[{«code»:»PF033″,»label»:»Windows»}],»Line of Business»:{«code»:»»,»label»:»»}},{«Type»:»HW»,»Business Unit»:{«code»:»BU016″,»label»:»Multiple Vendor Support»},»Product»:{«code»:»HWXX2″,»label»:»Lenovo x86 servers->Lenovo System x3650 M4″},»Platform»:[{«code»:»PF033″,»label»:»Windows»}],»Line of Business»:{«code»:»»,»label»:»»}},{«Type»:»HW»,»Business Unit»:{«code»:»BU016″,»label»:»Multiple Vendor Support»},»Product»:{«code»:»QU00VLD»,»label»:»System x->System x3650 M3 HF->5454″},»Platform»:[{«code»:»PF033″,»label»:»Windows»}],»Line of Business»:{«code»:»»,»label»:»»}},{«Type»:»HW»,»Business Unit»:{«code»:»BU016″,»label»:»Multiple Vendor Support»},»Product»:{«code»:»QU00ZUG»,»label»:»System x Hardware Options->ServeRAID->ServeRAID M and MR10 Series->90Y4304″},»Platform»:[{«code»:»PF033″,»label»:»Windows»}],»Line of Business»:{«code»:»»,»label»:»»}},{«Type»:»HW»,»Business Unit»:{«code»:»BU016″,»label»:»Multiple Vendor Support»},»Product»:{«code»:»QU01DEW»,»label»:»System x->System x3500 M4->7383″},»Platform»:[{«code»:»PF033″,»label»:»Windows»}],»Line of Business»:{«code»:»»,»label»:»»}},{«Type»:»HW»,»Business Unit»:{«code»:»BU016″,»label»:»Multiple Vendor Support»},»Product»:{«code»:»QU01DKP»,»label»:»System x->System x3650 M4->7915″},»Platform»:[{«code»:»PF033″,»label»:»Windows»}],»Line of Business»:{«code»:»»,»label»:»»}},{«Type»:»HW»,»Business Unit»:{«code»:»BU016″,»label»:»Multiple Vendor Support»},»Product»:{«code»:»QU01FYU»,»label»:»System x->System x3550 M4->5459″},»Platform»:[{«code»:»PF033″,»label»:»Windows»}],»Line of Business»:{«code»:»»,»label»:»»}},{«Type»:»HW»,»Business Unit»:{«code»:»BU016″,»label»:»Multiple Vendor Support»},»Product»:{«code»:»QU01GCQ»,»label»:»System x->System x3530 M4->7160″},»Platform»:[{«code»:»PF033″,»label»:»Windows»}],»Line of Business»:{«code»:»»,»label»:»»}},{«Type»:»HW»,»Business Unit»:{«code»:»BU016″,»label»:»Multiple Vendor Support»},»Product»:{«code»:»QU04FAH»,»label»:»System x->System x3200 M3->7328″},»Platform»:[{«code»:»PF033″,»label»:»Windows»}],»Line of Business»:{«code»:»»,»label»:»»}},{«Type»:»HW»,»Business Unit»:{«code»:»BU054″,»label»:»Systems w/TPS»},»Product»:{«code»:»QU04IMI»,»label»:»System x->System x3200 M3->7327″},»Platform»:[{«code»:»PF033″,»label»:»Windows»}],»Line of Business»:{«code»:»»,»label»:»»}},{«Type»:»HW»,»Business Unit»:{«code»:»BU016″,»label»:»Multiple Vendor Support»},»Product»:{«code»:»QU04SLL»,»label»:»System x->System x3650 M3->7945″},»Platform»:[{«code»:»PF033″,»label»:»Windows»}],»Line of Business»:{«code»:»»,»label»:»»}},{«Type»:»HW»,»Business Unit»:{«code»:»BU016″,»label»:»Multiple Vendor Support»},»Product»:{«code»:»QU04SMA»,»label»:»System x->System x3550 M3->7944″},»Platform»:[{«code»:»PF033″,»label»:»Windows»}],»Line of Business»:{«code»:»»,»label»:»»}},{«Type»:»HW»,»Business Unit»:{«code»:»BU016″,»label»:»Multiple Vendor Support»},»Product»:{«code»:»QU04SNM»,»label»:»System x->System x3400 M3->7378″},»Platform»:[{«code»:»PF033″,»label»:»Windows»}],»Line of Business»:{«code»:»»,»label»:»»}},{«Type»:»HW»,»Business Unit»:{«code»:»BU054″,»label»:»Systems w/TPS»},»Product»:{«code»:»QU04SNO»,»label»:»System x->System x3400 M3->7379″},»Platform»:[{«code»:»PF033″,»label»:»Windows»}],»Line of Business»:{«code»:»»,»label»:»»}},{«Type»:»HW»,»Business Unit»:{«code»:»BU016″,»label»:»Multiple Vendor Support»},»Product»:{«code»:»QU04SOK»,»label»:»System x->System x3500 M3->7380″},»Platform»:[{«code»:»PF033″,»label»:»Windows»}],»Line of Business»:{«code»:»»,»label»:»»}},{«Type»:»HW»,»Business Unit»:{«code»:»BU054″,»label»:»Systems w/TPS»},»Product»:{«code»:»QU04SPC»,»label»:»System x->System x3550 M3->4254″},»Platform»:[{«code»:»PF033″,»label»:»Windows»}],»Line of Business»:{«code»:»»,»label»:»»}},{«Type»:»HW»,»Business Unit»:{«code»:»BU016″,»label»:»Multiple Vendor Support»},»Product»:{«code»:»QU04SPI»,»label»:»System x->System x3650 M3->4255″},»Platform»:[{«code»:»PF033″,»label»:»Windows»}],»Line of Business»:{«code»:»»,»label»:»»}},{«Type»:»HW»,»Business Unit»:{«code»:»BU016″,»label»:»Multiple Vendor Support»},»Product»:{«code»:»QU04SRF»,»label»:»System x->System x3850 X5->7146″},»Platform»:[{«code»:»PF033″,»label»:»Windows»}],»Line of Business»:{«code»:»»,»label»:»»}},{«Type»:»HW»,»Business Unit»:{«code»:»BU016″,»label»:»Multiple Vendor Support»},»Product»:{«code»:»QU04SRO»,»label»:»System x->System x3850 X5->7145″},»Platform»:[{«code»:»PF033″,»label»:»Windows»}],»Line of Business»:{«code»:»»,»label»:»»}},{«Type»:»HW»,»Business Unit»:{«code»:»BU016″,»label»:»Multiple Vendor Support»},»Product»:{«code»:»QU04WDX»,»label»:»System x->System x3690 X5->7149″},»Platform»:[{«code»:»PF033″,»label»:»Windows»}],»Line of Business»:{«code»:»»,»label»:»»}},{«Type»:»HW»,»Business Unit»:{«code»:»BU016″,»label»:»Multiple Vendor Support»},»Product»:{«code»:»QU04WDY»,»label»:»System x->System x3690 X5->7148″},»Platform»:[{«code»:»PF033″,»label»:»Windows»}],»Line of Business»:{«code»:»»,»label»:»»}},{«Type»:»HW»,»Business Unit»:{«code»:»BU016″,»label»:»Multiple Vendor Support»},»Product»:{«code»:»QU90ABC»,»label»:»System x->System x3630 M3->7377″},»Platform»:[{«code»:»PF033″,»label»:»Windows»}],»Line of Business»:{«code»:»»,»label»:»»}},{«Type»:»HW»,»Business Unit»:{«code»:»BU016″,»label»:»Multiple Vendor Support»},»Product»:{«code»:»QU90ABE»,»label»:»System x->System x3755 M3->7164″},»Platform»:[{«code»:»PF033″,»label»:»Windows»}],»Line of Business»:{«code»:»»,»label»:»»}},{«Type»:»HW»,»Business Unit»:{«code»:»BU016″,»label»:»Multiple Vendor Support»},»Product»:{«code»:»QU90ABO»,»label»:»System x->System x3850 X5->7191″},»Platform»:[{«code»:»PF033″,»label»:»Windows»}],»Line of Business»:{«code»:»»,»label»:»»}},{«Type»:»HW»,»Business Unit»:{«code»:»BU016″,»label»:»Multiple Vendor Support»},»Product»:{«code»:»QU90ABQ»,»label»:»System x->System x3690 X5->7147″},»Platform»:[{«code»:»PF033″,»label»:»Windows»}],»Line of Business»:{«code»:»»,»label»:»»}},{«Type»:»HW»,»Business Unit»:{«code»:»BU016″,»label»:»Multiple Vendor Support»},»Product»:{«code»:»QU90ABX»,»label»:»System x->System x3850 X5->7143″},»Platform»:[{«code»:»PF033″,»label»:»Windows»}],»Line of Business»:{«code»:»»,»label»:»»}},{«Type»:»HW»,»Business Unit»:{«code»:»BU016″,»label»:»Multiple Vendor Support»},»Product»:{«code»:»QU90ACJ»,»label»:»System x->System x3100 M4->2582″},»Platform»:[{«code»:»PF033″,»label»:»Windows»}],»Line of Business»:{«code»:»»,»label»:»»}},{«Type»:»HW»,»Business Unit»:{«code»:»BU016″,»label»:»Multiple Vendor Support»},»Product»:{«code»:»QU90ACM»,»label»:»System x->System x3690 X5->7192″},»Platform»:[{«code»:»PF033″,»label»:»Windows»}],»Line of Business»:{«code»:»»,»label»:»»}},{«Type»:»HW»,»Business Unit»:{«code»:»BU016″,»label»:»Multiple Vendor Support»},»Product»:{«code»:»QU90ADT»,»label»:»System x->System x3950 X5->7143″},»Platform»:[{«code»:»PF033″,»label»:»Windows»}],»Line of Business»:{«code»:»»,»label»:»»}},{«Type»:»HW»,»Business Unit»:{«code»:»BU016″,»label»:»Multiple Vendor Support»},»Product»:{«code»:»QU91IPI»,»label»:»System x->System x3550 M4->7914″},»Platform»:[{«code»:»PF033″,»label»:»Windows»}],»Line of Business»:{«code»:»»,»label»:»»}},{«Type»:»HW»,»Business Unit»:{«code»:»BU016″,»label»:»Multiple Vendor Support»},»Product»:{«code»:»QU91NCW»,»label»:»System x->System x3630 M4->7158″},»Platform»:[{«code»:»PF033″,»label»:»Windows»}],»Line of Business»:{«code»:»»,»label»:»»}},{«Type»:»HW»,»Business Unit»:{«code»:»BU016″,»label»:»Multiple Vendor Support»},»Product»:{«code»:»QU91SVT»,»label»:»System x->System x3300 M4->7382″},»Platform»:[{«code»:»PF033″,»label»:»Windows»}],»Line of Business»:{«code»:»»,»label»:»»}},{«Type»:»HW»,»Business Unit»:{«code»:»BU016″,»label»:»Multiple Vendor Support»},»Product»:{«code»:»QUOEAR3″,»label»:»System x Hardware Options->ServeRAID->ServeRAID M and MR10 Series->81Y4448″},»Platform»:[{«code»:»PF033″,»label»:»Windows»}],»Line of Business»:{«code»:»»,»label»:»»}},{«Type»:»HW»,»Business Unit»:{«code»:»BU054″,»label»:»Systems w/TPS»},»Product»:{«code»:»QUOEARA»,»label»:»System x Hardware Options->ServeRAID->ServeRAID M and MR10 Series->81Y4542″},»Platform»:[{«code»:»PF033″,»label»:»Windows»}],»Line of Business»:{«code»:»»,»label»:»»}},{«Type»:»HW»,»Business Unit»:{«code»:»BU016″,»label»:»Multiple Vendor Support»},»Product»:{«code»:»QUOEARD»,»label»:»System x Hardware Options->ServeRAID->ServeRAID M and MR10 Series->81Y4478″},»Platform»:[{«code»:»PF033″,»label»:»Windows»}],»Line of Business»:{«code»:»»,»label»:»»}},{«Type»:»HW»,»Business Unit»:{«code»:»BU016″,»label»:»Multiple Vendor Support»},»Product»:{«code»:»QUOEARE»,»label»:»System x Hardware Options->ServeRAID->ServeRAID M and MR10 Series->81Y4481″},»Platform»:[{«code»:»PF033″,»label»:»Windows»}],»Line of Business»:{«code»:»»,»label»:»»}},{«Type»:»HW»,»Business Unit»:{«code»:»BU016″,»label»:»Multiple Vendor Support»},»Product»:{«code»:»QUOEATH»,»label»:»System x Hardware Options->ServeRAID->ServeRAID C100->81Y4475″},»Platform»:[{«code»:»PF033″,»label»:»Windows»}],»Line of Business»:{«code»:»»,»label»:»»}}]
8 Replies
-
First off, what kind of RAID level are you using? If this is RAID 1, it’s most likely a non-issue.
A parity error reported for a RAID-1 configuration rarely means that the disk is bad. It means that the primary and secondary disk do not match. To maintain high performance, the parity from a block of data is generated for the primary disk and for the secondary disk by the Redundant Array of Independent Disks (RAID) controller.
These two parity values are compared, and if they do not match the consistency check warning message is reported. This method is much faster than comparing each byte of the primary disk to each byte of the secondary disk.
https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/raid-110-consistency-check-inconsistency-logging-disabled-servers Opens a new window
Similar issues discussed here:
https://community.spiceworks.com/topic/484861-raid-consistency-check-fails-inconsistencies-found
And over there:
https://serverfault.com/questions/388682/lsi-raid-monitor-reports-consistency-check-inconsistency-lo… Opens a new window
1 found this helpful
thumb_up
thumb_down
-
CrashFF
This person is a verified professional.
Verify your account
to enable IT peers to see that you are a professional.habanero
The screenshot you have says VD1. In MSM, look up what physical drives are part of Virtual Drive 1. MSM allows you to see the stats for the individual physical drives, so check if any of the physical drives in VD1 are reporting any higher error counts than others.
Since it has inconsistent parity errors, I’m guessing this is a raid 5 or raid 6 array. Parity strips are distributed among all the drives.
1 found this helpful
thumb_up
thumb_down
-
1. Clear the log or set verbose logs
2. Check details of VD-1
3. Enable SMART logging or SMART error detection for drives
4. Run consistency checks on physical HDD (some MegaRAID have this, nit sure if the Windows software can do this or you need to go to POST/BIOS)
5. The error is either due to RAID 1 or RAID 10 header or HDD bad blocks (that cause writing inconsistencies)
The «RAID header» would likely be referring to the metadata tags that describe the array. The metadata tags contain information like the number of disks in the array, stripe size, and overall array size.
Inconsistencies in the array are usually caused by bad blocks. These can be bad physical or logical blocks. Blocks fail on HDDs all the time, so it is not uncommon for there to be inconsistencies. If you are running consistency checks on a regular basis and it is always repairing issues then there might be a problem.
1 found this helpful
thumb_up
thumb_down
-
The screenshot you have says VD1. In MSM, look up what physical drives are part of Virtual Drive 1. MSM allows you to see the stats for the individual physical drives, so check if any of the physical drives in VD1 are reporting any higher error counts than others.
Since it has inconsistent parity errors, I’m guessing this is a raid 5 or raid 6 array. Parity strips are distributed among all the drives.
This. Start checking the status and reported SMART statistics on members of VD1. Adrian has provided some great amplifying information, but based on the parity messages, my best guess is you have a disk that is starting to suffer cascade failure where it’s constantly remapping bad LBAs.
1 found this helpful
thumb_up
thumb_down
-
Hi Guys, Sorry for the delay. The RAID is 10 and I have checked all your suggestions with no further information. No drives are reporting any issues so I am going to ignore it for the time being. As soon as one fails I will have my answer I guess. Thank you all for your
Was this post helpful?
thumb_up
thumb_down
-
TonyJewers wrote:
Hi Guys, Sorry for the delay. The RAID is 10 and I have checked all your suggestions with no further information. No drives are reporting any issues so I am going to ignore it for the time being. As soon as one fails I will have my answer I guess. Thank you all for your
i would think it is better to run HDD diagnostics and some diagnostics test on the RAID adapter as these warnings might be just the beginning of larger issues.
Then also to see if the issues still persist….
What I would do is run physical HDD test to see the number of reported errors, corrected errors and any physical issues like bad sectors or bad blocks….eg 10TB HDD having only 9.99 TB due to bad blocks so it is impossible to mirror the data between HDD 0:1 & HDD :1:1 if that data happen to reside on the same areas of the «mirror partner».
Then like HDDs are like tires of a car….seldom only 1 tire of the car gets worn out although some may get worn out more (or faster) than others.
Was this post helpful?
thumb_up
thumb_down
-
Keep in mind that with RAID1 and RAID10 the message OP receives is informational and in almost all cases safely ignored due to the way RAID1/10 work.
My original reply contains a post with the technical details and here is another to backup the claim from another vendor that happens to utilize the same hardware in some of their products.
https://support.lenovo.com/ca/en/solutions/ht113618 Opens a new window
Was this post helpful?
thumb_up
thumb_down
-
adrian_ych wrote:
TonyJewers wrote:
Hi Guys, Sorry for the delay. The RAID is 10 and I have checked all your suggestions with no further information. No drives are reporting any issues so I am going to ignore it for the time being. As soon as one fails I will have my answer I guess. Thank you all for your
i would think it is better to run HDD diagnostics and some diagnostics test on the RAID adapter as these warnings might be just the beginning of larger issues.
Then also to see if the issues still persist….
What I would do is run physical HDD test to see the number of reported errors, corrected errors and any physical issues like bad sectors or bad blocks….eg 10TB HDD having only 9.99 TB due to bad blocks so it is impossible to mirror the data between HDD 0:1 & HDD :1:1 if that data happen to reside on the same areas of the «mirror partner».
Then like HDDs are like tires of a car….seldom only 1 tire of the car gets worn out although some may get worn out more (or faster) than others.
Thanks adrian, as I said I have run diags on each drive in the array and they all report no errors. I am expecting a failure at some time but at the moments it seems impossible to identify the drive. BTW I removed each drive and ran the diags on a second machine that had spare slots.
Was this post helpful?
thumb_up
thumb_down
