There was a recent conversation on this mailing list about transparently recovering from read errors (essentially just rewriting the bad stripe and letting the disk handle it), but I think it focused on Raid 1. It would be a natural for Raid 5 or 6, but I haven't seen an experimental patch to do that. If you just want to monitor, look at http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net each of the drives in my array has a montoring config: /dev/hda -a -o on -S on -R 194 -s (S/../.././02|L/../../6/07) -m lowekamp@xxxxxxxxx two weeks ago I got email that one disk had a bad read on a sector during its weekly long scan (an entire surface scan). I failed that drive manually, waited until it resynced on the spare, overwrote the entire drive to let the drive clear the sector (and make sure there weren't any other problems), then reran the test and set that drive as the spare. I'd still feel safer if it automatically overwrote only the sector with the read error, but at least this way I knew that the other 9 drives had passed a surface scan just before, so I wasn't likely to run into a second read failure on rebuild. Bruce On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 11:36:33 -0400, David Mansfield <md@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > After a few recent severe raid failures (one linux md, one 3ware), my > understanding and fear about linux md is greatly increased. Single > sector unrecoverable errors are doing us in! > > To alleviate these fears, we (my coworkers and I) believe we need to > start a policy of conducting a 'background media scan' of the actual > underlying physical devices in a raid 5. This is easily accomplished on > the 3ware (it's built in), but we are struggling with linux md. > > A utility called SCU, http://www.bit-net.com/%7Ermiller/scu.html, will > allow us to scan the media, and, if necessary, reassign the bad blocks. > We have used this on scsi disks before, it seems to work, as a lowlevel > tool. > > However! If two bad blocks are discovered on two different disks in the > raid 5 (even if the bad blocks are in different stripes), we will be > screwed, because the raid system will kick out the disk immediately when > the first bad sector is found, and then reconstruction will fail when > the second bad sector is found. screwed. > > Which brings me (finally) to my questions: > > 1) does linux md have a plan for integrating background media scanning > and automatic sector reassignment like hardware solutions have? > > 2) how can we force (or manually perform) a stripe-wise resync? is it > possible to take the raid offline completely, read the data with dd, > compute the parity manually, reassign the bad block using SCU and > rewrite the parity block with dd then put the raid online again? > > If #2 is possible, I'm sure a quick-and-dirty perl script could be > created to do the work, which I'd be happy to do, if it's theoretically > doable. > > Thanks, > David > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- Bruce Lowekamp (lowekamp@xxxxxxxxx) Computer Science Dept, College of William and Mary - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
