Neil Brown wrote: >> Is my perception of the situation correct? > > No. Writing the superblock does not cause the array to be marked > active. > If the array is idle, the individual drives will be idle. Ok, thank you for the clarification. >> Seems like a design flaw to me, but then again, I'm biased towards >> hating this behaviour since I really like being able to put inactive >> RAIDs to sleep.. > > Hmmm... maybe I misunderstood your problem. I thought you were just > talking about a spare not being idle when you thought it should be. > Are you saying that your whole array is idle, but still seeing writes? > That would have to be something non-md-specific I think. No, the confusion is my bad. That was the original problem posted by Peter Evertz, which you provided a workaround for. _I_ was just curious about the workings of MD in 2.6, since it sounded a bit like it wasn't possible to put a RAID array to sleep. I'm about to upgrade a server to 2.6, which "needs" to spin down when idle. Got a bit worried for a moment there =). Thanks again. - 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
