On Wed, 25 Dec 2013 19:13:27 +0400 Sergey B Kirpichev <skirpic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The main issue which all proposed solutions share is when > > there's a large array, say, md0, and a small array, say, > > md1, both shares the same set of underlying disks, so md > > subystem will not check/repair them in parallel. In this > > situation, we will never check md1 if checking md0 takes > > more time than we allow in a month (28 days). > > What do you think about suggested above solution > (set sync_force_parallel to 1 during cronjobs)? This workaround > is implemented in the updated (attached) patch. > > See also: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=556610#74 > > BTW, how bad is in general to set > sync_force_parallel to 1 per default? (Cc'd to Neil Brown.) It is very unlikely to have a positive effect. If it has any effect, it will significantly slow down any check/repair etc that is happening. > > I think, it would be nice to end (not pause) check if it's reached > sync_max. Perhaps, there is deep reasons why md's interface > doesn't work in this way. Neil, could you explan this a bit? There might be a reason to continue the resync. If you want to "end" the resync, then have some program wait for sync_completed to reach sync_max, then write 'idle' to 'sync_action'. If you (or someone here) want to write a general "incremental check" script then I think that is a great idea, but rather than treating it as a "Debian" thing, post the proposal to linux-r...@vger.kernel.org and get feedback and suggestions there and when it is ready we can include it in the upstream mdadm package. NeilBrown > > > I'll think about it all more. > > Any news?
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature