On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 09:49:21AM -0800, Jon Nelson wrote: > On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Ray Van Dolson <rvandolson@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 08:47:33AM -0800, Iain Rauch wrote: > >> > The typical use case for me is this: I will run the array (/dev/md11) in > >> > degraded mode (without /dev/nbd0) for a week or so. > >> > At some point, I will try to synchronize the underlying devices. > >> > >> Sounds like rsync is more suited to your application. > >> Why are you using RAID? > >> > >> Iain > > > > Seems academic to me. Whatever the reasons, the above _should_ work > > should it not? > > > > Could this be NBD's fault somehow? > > I don't think so. This is how I *remove* the nbd device: > > mdadm /dev/md11 --fail /dev/nbd0 > sleep 3 > mdadm /dev/md11 --remove /dev/nbd0 > > and then finally nbd-client -d /dev/nbd0 > > If necessary, I can try to simulate the problem by using a local > logical volume or some such. Don't want to send you on a wild goose chase, but I'd be interested to see the results of that and maybe the results of the same with an iSCSI backed blocked device vs nbd. I just thought there were some subtle differences between NBD and other "SAN" over network protocols. No idea how they'd play into the scenario you're describing however. Ray -- 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
