[PATCH 005 of 5] md: Fix type that is stopping raid5 grow from working.

This kmem_cache_create is creating a cache that already exists. We could us the alternate name, just like we do a few lines up. Signed-off-by: Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Dan Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ### Diffstat output ./drivers/md/raid5.c |2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+

[PATCH 002 of 5] md: 'sync_action' in sysfs returns wrong value for readonly arrays

When an array is started read-only, MD_RECOVERY_NEEDED can be set but no recovery will be running. This causes 'sync_action' to report the wrong value. We could remove the test for MD_RECOVERY_NEEDED, but doing so would leave a small gap after requesting a sync action, where 'sync_action' would

[PATCH 003 of 5] md: Expose the degraded status of an assembled array through sysfs

From: Iustin Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The 'degraded' attribute is useful to quickly determine if the array is degraded, instead of parsing 'mdadm -D' output or relying on the other techniques (number of working devices against number of defined devices, etc.). The md code already keeps track of th

[PATCH 004 of 5] md: Make sure read errors are auto-corrected during a 'check' resync in raid1

Whenever a read error is found, we should attempt to overwrite with correct data to 'fix' it. However when do a 'check' pass (which compares data blocks that are successfully read, but doesn't normally overwrite) we don't do that. We should. Signed-off-by: Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ### Dif

[PATCH 001 of 5] md: Fix a bug in some never-used code.

http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3277 There is a seq_printf here that isn't being passed a 'seq'. Howeve as the code is inside #ifdef MD_DEBUG, nobody noticed. Also remove some extra spaces. Signed-off-by: Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ### Diffstat output ./drivers/md/raid0.c | 1

[PATCH 000 of 5] md: Five minor md patch, some for 2.6.24.

Following are 5 minor patches for md in current -mm. The first 4 are suitable to flow into 2.6.24. The last fixes a small bug in Dan Williams' patches currently in -mm, which are not scheduled for 2.6.24. Thanks, NeilBrown [PATCH 001 of 5] md: Fix a bug in some never-used code. [PATCH 002 of

Re: Help RAID5 reshape Oops / backup-file

On Sunday October 14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Can someone tell me if I'm on the right track? > I've now noticed the following: > # ~/mdadm-2.6.3/mdadm -v -A /dev/md0 /dev/sd[d-e] > mdadm: looking for devices for /dev/md0 > mdadm: /dev/sdd is identified as a member of /dev/md0, slot -1. > mdadm:

Re: Software RAID when it works and when it doesn't

On Sun, 2007-10-14 at 10:21 -0600, Maurice Hilarius wrote: > Alberto Alonso wrote: > > > PATA (IDE) with > Master and Slave drives is a "bad idea" as, when one drive fails, the > other of the Master & Slave pair often is no longer usable. > On discrete interfaces, with all drives configured as

Re: Help RAID5 reshape Oops / backup-file

Can someone tell me if I'm on the right track? I've now noticed the following: # ~/mdadm-2.6.3/mdadm -v -A /dev/md0 /dev/sd[d-e] mdadm: looking for devices for /dev/md0 mdadm: /dev/sdd is identified as a member of /dev/md0, slot -1. mdadm: /dev/sde is identified as a member of /dev/md0, slot -1. m

Re: Kicking the right drive out

Have a look at mdadm -Q --detail /dev/md0 But I'd suspect the problematic disk is causing that slow resync. I would add a new disk and then declare the one you suspect as bad. If the other two are are ok it should resync to the new one and you're fine. Otherwise you can re-add the declared failed