On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 09:38:44AM -0500, Justin wrote:
> As I recall, at least in my U_ situations, when an array
> goes U_, the 'failed' disk is no longer addressable at all,
> until a reboot.. but next time it happens I'll try after
> reboot reading the entire surface before re-writing it
> to see if that picks up any errors.
Ok, cool.
> I could see how a read would fail, until a disk was told
> to write, then the whole surface would work again.. if this
> is common behavior for disks would that perhaps be
> something the raid code could recognize and work around?
To me it has been fairly common.
But what workaround would you put into the MD code ? Just write a zero block
to the bad sector, and "gracefully" ignore the bad block (leaving the
filesystem with a zeroed out hole) ? No, the correct action is to kick the
disk (IMO).
I've been thinking about doing things like nightly "scans" of the underlying
disks - but that kind of code is much easier done in userspace (where it
belongs). Then, you'd have a failed disk in the morning, which is better
than suddenly having a failed disk in a RAID-5 and then losing the entire
array when number two disk fails during the re-sync.
--
................................................................
: jakob@unthought.net : And I see the elder races, :
:.........................: putrid forms of man :
: Jakob Østergaard : See him rise and claim the earth, :
: OZ9ABN : his downfall is at hand. :
:.........................:............{Konkhra}...............:
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
