On 02/16/2011 07:52 PM, NeilBrown wrote: > On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 19:24:15 -0500 Phil Turmel <philip@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 02/16/2011 04:48 PM, NeilBrown wrote: >>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 21:29:39 +0100 Piergiorgio Sartor >>>> >>>>> Better reporting of inconsistencies. >>>>> ------------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> When a 'check' finds a data inconsistency it would be useful if it >>>>> was reported. That would allow a sysadmin to try to understand the >>>>> cause and possibly fix it. >>>> >>>> Could you, please, consider to add, for RAID-6, the >>>> capability to report also which device, potentially, >>>> has the problem? Thanks! >>> >>> I would rather leave that to user-space. If I report where the problem is, a >>> tool could directly read all the blocks in that stripe and perform any fancy >>> calculations you like. I may even write that tool (but no promises). >> >> Hmmm. The existing "check" code, if it encounters a read error, will use >> available redundancy to recover that data and rewrite it on the spot. >> >> Without a read error, or with multiple redundancy, the calculations to >> check consistency are performed and reported. With all the data "hot", and half >> the calculation to pinpoint an inconsistency done, it seems a shame to have >> userspace redo it. >> >> Are you adamantly opposed to the kernel doing this? (For Raid6) Code talks, >> of course, but I'd rather not start if I'm only going to be shot down. >> > > I like to think I remain open-minded to any compelling arguments. > > However putting code into the kernel which *only* tells user-space something > that it could figure out for itself doesn't sound sensible - though it > depends a bit on how much code. > > Also - as I understand it - the RAID6 code works on a byte-by-byte basis. > This the P and Q bytes are computed from the N data bytes, and collections of > these bytes form blocks. > > The "which block is bad calculation" take the data bytes and the P and Q > bytes and produces a new byte. If that byte is < N, it means that just > changing data byte N can make P and Q consistent. (if it is N, the the P > bytes is bad, if it is N+1 then the Q byte is bad). If it is >N+1, then > ... possibly multiple bytes are bad .. my knowledge gets hazy here. > > So when you do the computation on all of the bytes in all of the blocks you > get a block full of answers. > If the answers are all the same - that tells you something fairly strong. > If they are a "all different" then that is also a fairly strong statement. > But what if most are the same, but a few are different? How do you interpret > that? Actually, I was thinking about that. (You suckered me into reading that PDF some weeks ago.) I would be inclined to allow the kernel to make corrections where "all the same" covers individual sectors, per the sector size reported by the underlying device. Also, the comparison would have to ignore "neutral bytes", where P & Q happened to be correct for that byte position. > The point I'm trying to get to is that the result of this RAID6 calculation > isn't a simple "that device is bad". It is a block of data that needs to be > interpreted. > > I'd rather have user-space do that interpretation, so it may as well do the > calculation too. > > If you wanted to do it in the kernel, you would need to be very clear about > what information you provide, what it means exactly, and why it is sufficient. Given that the hardware is going to do error correction and checking at a sector size granularity, and the kernel would in fact rewrite that sector using this calculation if the hardware made a "fairly strong" statement that it can't be trusted, I'd argue that rewriting the sector is appropriate. Any corrective action that isn't consistent at the sector level should be punted. I'm very curious what percentage that would be in production environments. Phil -- 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
