[lkml]   [2005]   [May]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: RAID-5 design bug (or misfeature)
    * Alan Cox ( wrote:
    > On Llu, 2005-05-30 at 03:47, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
    > > > In article <> you wrote:
    > > > > I think Linux should stop accessing all disks in RAID-5 array if two disks
    > > > > fail and not write "this array is dead" in superblocks on remaining disks,
    > > > > efficiently destroying the whole array.
    > It discovered the disks had failed because they had outstanding I/O that
    > failed to complete and errorred. At that point your stripes *are*
    > inconsistent. If it didn't mark them as failed then you wouldn't know it
    > was corrupted after a power restore. You can then clean it fsck it,
    > restore it, use mdadm as appropriate to restore the volume and check it.

    Could that I/O be backed out when it's discovered that there's too many
    dead disks for the array to be kept online anymore?

    Just a thought,

    [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-05-30 15:27    [W:0.021 / U:5.292 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site