@Azzazel Welcome to the Rockstor community.
Thanks for this report.
From the message displayed:
“Disks cannot be removed from a pool with this raid (raid0) configuration”
It would seem, as these detached disks are still considered as part of the pool, and that the pool is raid0, which can have zero disks removed, we may be blocking on that basis prematurely. I’m due to look at this area of the code again soonish so will see if I can work out what’s going wrong.
But on a related note, from a quick look, the detached disks are no longer found as their appears to be no matching serial number. Rockstor tracks drives by their serial number. Does the backup system you used some how change device serial numbers. In which case it is not going to be suitable for Rockstor use, without caveats. Did you for instance have to re-import this pool post the restore. I’m just trying to fathom what’s happened here. Rockstor tracks devices it is asked to manage (pools created within the Web-UI and imports there in also) by their serial number so all the missing drives I’m assuming are the prior instances of what we see the newly attached disks as. But if as I suspect their serial numbers have changed they are to all intents and purposes, from Rockstor’s perspective, new disks. Hence the confusion.
This is an interesting one and I will try and fathom whats happened but it you could comment on the devices serial number stability through this ‘backup restore’ process that would help.
And if this backup restore of devices is configurable to maintain serial numbers through this process then that would probably avoid all these ghost devices appearing in the first place.
The following technical Wiki entry is our stance on device serial numbers and why:
Thanks for the details report and I look forward to hearing confirmation of if this VM based backup restore systems does in fact change drive serial numbers. If so then if their is an option to persist these that would be a pre-requisit from Rockstor’s perspective.
Hope that helps and thanks again for the report. Haven’t seen that one before.