On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 8:43 PM, Neil Brown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote: > I note that while in the original mail in this thread you were talking > about growing an array by adding drives, you are now talking about > growing an array by using more space on each drive. This change threw > me at first... True. Mea Culpa. >> Remaining questions: >> >> 1. Why does the version of metadata matter so much in a --grow --size operation? > > I cannot measure any significant different. Could you give some > precise details of the tests you run and the results you get ? I'll try to throw some stuff together soon. >> 2. There appear to be bugs when a bitmap is used. Can somebody else confirm? > > Confirmed. If you --grow an array with a bitmap, you will hit > problems as there is no mechanism to grow the bitmap. > What you need to do is to remove the bitmap, do the 'grow', then > re-add the bitmap. > I thought I had arranged that a grow would fail if there was a bitmap > in place, but I guess not. > I'll have a look into this. A small suggestion: to avoid trepidation, perhaps a small note like "you may re-add the bitmap while the array is still rebuilding/growing/whatever" would help to avoid some worry. There are two other solutions: Have the underlying code grow the bitmap (probably hard), or have it automatically remove+re-add the bitmap. -- Jon -- 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
