On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Joel Sing wrote:
> Your analysis is incorrect - offlining of chunks is handled via sr_ccb_done().
> If lower level I/O indicates an error occurred then the chunk is marked
> offline,
> providing that the discipline has redundancy (for example, we do not offline
>
On Friday 10 July 2015 22:01:43 Karel Gardas wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 9:34 PM, Chris Cappuccio wrote:
> > My first impression, offlining the drive after a single chunk failure
> > may be too aggressive as some errors are a result of issues other than
> > drive failures.
>
> Indeed, it may
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 9:34 PM, Chris Cappuccio wrote:
> My first impression, offlining the drive after a single chunk failure
> may be too aggressive as some errors are a result of issues other than
> drive failures.
Indeed, it may look as too aggressive, but is my analysis written in
comment c
Karel Gardas [gard...@gmail.com] wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I think I've found a bug on software RAID1 implementation of handling
> write errors. IMHO code should check if every write to every chunk
> succeed. If not, then there is an error which it needs to handle.
> Proposed patch handles such error by
Hello,
I think I've found a bug on software RAID1 implementation of handling
write errors. IMHO code should check if every write to every chunk
succeed. If not, then there is an error which it needs to handle.
Proposed patch handles such error by off-lining the problematic drive.
The patch compile
