[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:0.078 / U:1.620 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site