On Monday June 25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there any way for the RAID code to be smarter when deciding
about those event counters? Does it have any chance (theoretically)
to _know_ that it shouldn't use the drive with event count 28?
My current thinking is that once a raid array becomes
Hi Neil,
thanks for your reply!
Neil Brown wrote:
[...]
I'm not sure that you want to know this, but it looks like you might
have been able to recover your data though it is only a might.
Yes, I already figured that out (with help from Martin Bene)
Jun 19 09:18:23 wien kernel:
Hi!
Neil Brown wrote:
On Thursday June 14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear All
I've just had a disk (sdc) fail in my raid5 array (sdb sdc sdd),
Great! A real live hardware failure1 It is always more satisfying to
watch one of those than to have to simulate them all the time!!
On Sunday June 24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi!
Neil Brown wrote:
On Thursday June 14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear All
I've just had a disk (sdc) fail in my raid5 array (sdb sdc sdd),
Great! A real live hardware failure1 It is always more satisfying to
watch one of
Dear All
I've just had a disk (sdc) fail in my raid5 array (sdb sdc sdd),
and I noticed that it triggered a bug (?) in raid5.c, line 523:
kernel: md: bug in file raid5.c, line 523
Is it OK to ignore this ?
I'm running 2.4.5ac13.
Thanks!
Ian
--- excerpt from messages ---
Jun 14 07:10:42
