On 4/7/2010 7:49 PM, Neil Brown wrote: > I can only imagine two circumstances in which this could happen. > 1/ You have a write-intent-bitmap configured. > 2/ The event count on the two devices incremented by exactly the same > about while they were in use separately. > > The second seems very improbably, but is certainly possible. > > Please confirm whether or not you had a bitmap configured. No write intent bitmap configured, and yes, the event count appears to be the same on both legs. > There is no important difference between "missing" and "faulty". If md > cannot access a device there is no way for it to know whether you, the admin, > considers that device to have failed or to simply have been removed > temporarily (e.g. as part of some backup regime). Yes, but if a disk is faulty,removed, then either you explicitly told mdadm to fail the disk and remove it, or it was failed and removed during degraded activation. In this case, shouldn't it require an mdadm --add to re-insert it into the array? If you had manually failed and removed the disk, then their metadata would both agree that the second disk was removed, and it would require an explicit --add to return it. This problem seems to stem from the fact that their metadata disagree about which disk is removed. In this case, shouldn't the data in the already active array taken from the first disk override the metadata in the second disk when it is incrementally added? In other words, mdadm --incremental should update the metadata on the second disk to agree with the first, showing the second disk is the one that is removed, and not activate the disk without an mdadm --add. > No. Just because the device was removed from the array doesn't mean you > don't want to to be part of the array any more. And seeing the device is > still plugged in... What? Of course it does. If you explicitly remove the device it means you don't want it being part of the array any more. > mdadm --incremental should only included both disks in the array if > 1/ their event counts are the same, or +/- 1, or > 2/ there is a write-intent bitmap and the older event count is within > the range recorded in the write-intent bitmap. I'm not familiar with the meaning of the event count. Why should it matter? And shouldn't the only effect the write-intent bitmap has is to speed up resyncing when you manually re-add the disk? > You should understand that what you have done is at least undefined. > If you break a mirror, change both halves, then put it together again there > is no clearly "right" answer as to what will appear. Yes, which version you get is undefined and I would think would come down to which disk was discovered first, but you certainly should get one version, or the other, not a mismash of both. If the second disk were left as removed and required manual intervention to use, then the administrator could examine it and recover any data written to that disk but not the first, before manually re-inserting it into the array causing a resync. -- 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
