On 29 July 2011 21:48, Beolach <beolach@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 07:25, Nikolay Kichukov <hijacker@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Hi, >> >> This is a good to know! >> >> Just performed a check on a raid1 and got: >> >> Jul 29 15:37:36 hanna64 mdadm[2277]: RebuildFinished event detected on md device /dev/md1, component device mismatches >> found: 128 >> >> So I presume those mismatches have now been rewritten to both disks successfully. Am I wrong there? >> >> cat /sys/block/md1/md/mismatch_cnt >> 128 >> >> > > That depends on if you did a "check" or a "repair" - see the SCRUBBING > AND MISMATCHES section of the md(4) man page: > "If check was used, then no action is taken to handle the mismatch, > it is simply recorded. If repair was used, then a mismatch will > be repaired in the same way that resync repairs arrays." > > > Good luck, > Beolach > -- > 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 > Sorry to chime in like this. After reading the above, is there a reason why anyone shouldn't _always_ use repair instead of check on a weekly RAID6 check? You have to run repair anyway after a check if any issues are found, right? Or does the system become vulnerable during a repair? (less redundant) Thanks, Mathias -- 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
