On 08.03.2005 14:13, Gordon Henderson wrote:
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Tobias Hofmann wrote:
[...]
I had found postings on the net claiming that doing so without
unmounting the fs on the raid, this would lead to bad things happening -
but your report seems to prove them wrong...
I've been using
This patch removes my problem. I hope it doesn't have influence on the
stability of
the system.
It is simple: The Update routine skips normaly only faulty disks. Now it
skips all disk
that are not part of the working array ( raid_disk == -1 )
I made some testing, but surely not all, so :
DON'T
Hi Peter,
After applying this patch, have you tried stop and restart the MD
array? I believe the spares will be kicked out in analyze_sbs()
function (see the second ITERATE_RDEV)
--
Regards,
Mike T.
On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 09:53, Peter Evertz wrote:
This patch removes my problem. I hope it
I tried the patch and immediately found problems.
On creation of raid1 array, only the spare has md superblock, the raid
disks has no superblock. For instance:
mdadm -C /dev/md0 -l 1 -n 2 /dev/hdd1 /dev/hdd2 -x 1 /dev/hdd3
[wait for resync to finish if you want to...]
mdadm --stop /dev/md0
Mike Tran writes:
I tried the patch and immediately found problems.
On creation of raid1 array, only the spare has md superblock, the raid
disks has no superblock. For instance:
mdadm -C /dev/md0 -l 1 -n 2 /dev/hdd1 /dev/hdd2 -x 1 /dev/hdd3
[wait for resync to finish if you want to...]
mdadm
Neil Brown wrote:
As the event count needs to be updated every time the superblock is
modified, the event count will be updated forever active-clean or
clean-active transition. All the drives in an array must have the
same value for the event count, so the spares need to be updated even
though
Tobias wrote:
[...]
I just found your mail on this list, where I have been lurking for
some weeks now to get acquainted with RAID, but I fear my mail would
be almost OT there:
Think so? It's about RAID on Linux isn't it?
I'm gonna CC the list anyway, hope it's okay :-).
I was just curious
On 08.03.2005 09:57, Molle Bestefich wrote:
[...]
I'm gonna CC the list anyway, hope it's okay :-).
I hope so, too... ;)
[...]
No, but I can tell you what I did.
I stuffed a bunch of cheap SATA disks and crappy controllers in an old system.
(And replaced the power supply with one that has enough
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Tobias Hofmann wrote:
I stuffed a bunch of cheap SATA disks and crappy controllers in an old
system. (And replaced the power supply with one that has enough power
on the 12V rail.)
It's running 2.4, and since it's IDE disks, I just call 'hdparm
-Swhatever' in
Gordon Henderson wrote:
I'm in the middle of building up a new home server - looking at RAID-5 or
6 and 2.6.x, so maybe it's time to look at all this again, but it sounds
like the auto superblock update might thwart it all now...
Nah... As far as I can tell, 20ms after the last write, the auto
] On Behalf Of Peter Evertz
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 11:05 PM
To: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Spare disk could not sleep / standby
I have 2 Raid5 arrays on a hpt375. Each has a (unused) spare disk.
With change from 2.4 to 2.6 I can not put the spare disk to sleep or
standby
Neil Brown wrote:
It is writes, but don't be scared. It is just super-block updates.
In 2.6, the superblock is marked 'clean' whenever there is a period of
about 20ms of no write activity. This increases the chance on a
resync won't be needed after a crash.
(unfortunately) the superblocks
On Tuesday March 8, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Neil Brown wrote:
It is writes, but don't be scared. It is just super-block updates.
In 2.6, the superblock is marked 'clean' whenever there is a period of
about 20ms of no write activity. This increases the chance on a
resync won't be
On Tuesday March 8, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Neil Brown wrote:
Then after 20ms with no write, they are all marked 'clean'.
Then before the next write they are all marked 'active'.
As the event count needs to be updated every time the superblock is
modified, the event count will be
Neil Brown wrote:
Is my perception of the situation correct?
No. Writing the superblock does not cause the array to be marked
active.
If the array is idle, the individual drives will be idle.
Ok, thank you for the clarification.
Seems like a design flaw to me, but then again, I'm biased
15 matches
Mail list logo
