On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 07:21:09 +0300 CoolCold <coolthecold@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 6:41 AM, NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 06:16:22 +0300 CoolCold <coolthecold@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> Hello! > >> > >> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 3:25 AM, NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> [snip] > >> > Then start either the > >> > 'next' array at the beginning, or the 'current' array at the current point > >> > (write to sync_min). > >> I couldn't find documentation for sync_min/sync_max sysfs params at > >> least for repo cloned from > >> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-2.6.37.y.git > >> coolcold@coolcold:~/gits/linux-2.6.37.y$ grep -qi sync_min > >> Documentation/md.txt || echo failed find docs > >> failed find docs > > > > Yes, sorry about that. > May be I can help and create patch for md.txt after this thread? If > yes, it would be nice to get some link for proper patch providing > instructions, never did patches for kernel ;) Patches always welcome!! So yes please. Have a read through SubmittingPatches in linux/Documentation (same directory that 'md.txt' is in). That should get you close enough. Thanks, NeilBrown > > > > >> > >> As I could understand from sources - resync_min & resync_max are > >> expressed in sectors (512bytes?) and are set to 0 & total sectors on > >> device accordingly. resync_max value should be divisible by array > >> chunk size (in sectors) . After setting this values, one can trugger > >> "check" / "repair" into sync_action. > > > > Yes - sectors (multiples of 512 bytes) > > Yes - 0 and a big number. sync_max is actually set to MAX_LONG rather than > > the actual total number of sectors. > > > > Yes - one can trigger 'check' or 'repair' and it will obey these limits. > > When it reaches 'sync_max' it will pause rather than complete. You can > > use 'select' or 'poll' on "sync_completed" to wait for that number to > > reach sync_max. Then you can either increase sync_max, or can write > > "idle" to "sync_action". > > > >> > >> My basic idea is to use this method to clear pending sectors from > >> SMART checks and looks like this gonna work, am i right? > >> > > > > I don't know exactly what "pending sectors" are, but if they are sectors > > which return an error to READ and can be fixed by writing data to them, then > > you are right, this should 'clear' any pending sectors. > Yes, i meant that kind. > > > > Of course you will need to be careful about mapping the sector number > > from smart to the second number given to 'sync_min'. > I guess you meant "sector" not "second" here? > > > Not only must you > > adjust for any partition table, but also the 'data offset' of the > > md array must be allowed for. > So, for 0.9 metadata format offset is always gonna be 0, right? > And if the bad thing happens - bad block with read error is found on > metadata section, will mdadm with --update <something> will be enought > to do force write? > > > > > NeilBrown > > > > > > > >> > Then wait for however long you want, abort the check (write 'idle' to > >> > 'sync_action') and find out where it got up to (read sync_min) and record > >> > that for next time. > >> > > >> > NeilBrown > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > -- 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
