NETGEAR is aware of a growing number of phone and online scams. To learn how to stay safe click here.
Forum Discussion
Rescuing from an epic fail
Hello folks. I've got a tough one here. My lab runs a Pro, an 1100, and two NV+ ReadyNAS devices. In general things work well and I'm comfortable with all common management tasks. This problem j...
Thanks, folks. Let me summarize/infer so I'm sure I get what you are thinking.
Does "offline volume" here refer to the fact that I can't access the existing share under CIFS? Or does it refer to Frontview's insistence that 0 MB are free on two of the disks, meaning that they are functionally offline so the volume cannot even be constructed?
From EBrown's suggestion, I interpreted that somehow the Bad Drive (or possibly some coincident other cause) managed to hose the firmware copies on two of the other disks so that they don't play nicely with the system and can't even identify the bad disk.
Question: if two disks go bad simultaneously, will Frontview report two bad drives by number or will it report "Drive ???" as I saw in this case. If the firmware got hosed on two drives (judging this because now Frontview shows two drives with "0 MB free"), and if this inability to identify the bad drives if there are more than one is normal Frontview behavior, and if two drives are hosed then of course you can't build the volume or rebuild the image onto the fourth disk -- then that would sort of explain everything. In which case it would seem that if I could fix the firmware image on the drives then they would get back with the program and, crossing fingers, fix everything. Is this right thinking? If so, I get that reinstalling the OS would be a good way to go. Am I correct in interpreting that, if all goes well, my volumes and data would be intact after this OS reinstallation?
Or, counterpoint, why would this not work (as in "OS reinstall won't help an offline volume"). Will/could it hurt anything or is it worth a try? Please help me sort this out.
Thanks very much for your help & input -
Thom
Does "offline volume" here refer to the fact that I can't access the existing share under CIFS? Or does it refer to Frontview's insistence that 0 MB are free on two of the disks, meaning that they are functionally offline so the volume cannot even be constructed?
From EBrown's suggestion, I interpreted that somehow the Bad Drive (or possibly some coincident other cause) managed to hose the firmware copies on two of the other disks so that they don't play nicely with the system and can't even identify the bad disk.
Question: if two disks go bad simultaneously, will Frontview report two bad drives by number or will it report "Drive ???" as I saw in this case. If the firmware got hosed on two drives (judging this because now Frontview shows two drives with "0 MB free"), and if this inability to identify the bad drives if there are more than one is normal Frontview behavior, and if two drives are hosed then of course you can't build the volume or rebuild the image onto the fourth disk -- then that would sort of explain everything. In which case it would seem that if I could fix the firmware image on the drives then they would get back with the program and, crossing fingers, fix everything. Is this right thinking? If so, I get that reinstalling the OS would be a good way to go. Am I correct in interpreting that, if all goes well, my volumes and data would be intact after this OS reinstallation?
Or, counterpoint, why would this not work (as in "OS reinstall won't help an offline volume"). Will/could it hurt anything or is it worth a try? Please help me sort this out.
Thanks very much for your help & input -
Thom
NETGEAR Academy
Boost your skills with the Netgear Academy - Get trained, certified and stay ahead with the latest Netgear technology!
Join Us!
