On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 10:56:27 +0200 Asdo <asdo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Right, that's the reason of my question. > Neil wrote "I probably don't want to rush it out" so that would mean > that the buggy code is not "out" yet. > So that would point to mdadm-3.3 because the bad block code of the > kernel is already "out". > However as you say the bad block code in mdadm-3.3 is very simple so > it's strange that it could be buggy. > > Now thinking at myself: if there were bugs in the mdadm-3.3 I probably > have dodged them because I was able to create the array. > However if there are known bugs in the kernel code our data is still at > risk so i'd rather ask. Yes, there is a degree to which your data is at risk. This is always the case with new code. If you upgrade to new -stable kernels as they become available, that should minimise your risk as any fix that could risk data or stability is backported to these -stable kernels. I don't know of any particularly serious bugs that have been found - they mostly are triggered by unusual conditions. However unusual conditions do happen. Thank you for using and testing the code. Has md found and recorded any bad blocks for you, or are your bad-block logs still empty? NeilBrown > FWIW I am not using mdadm-3.3 as monitoring daemon: the daemon is > mdadm-3.2 , I don't know if this "helps". > > Thank you > A. > > > On 07/16/12 09:55, Alexander Lyakas wrote: > > The mdadm code only reserves some space for bad-blocks log and > > notifies the kernel that this feature is enabled during array > > creation. > > > > On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Asdo<asdo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 07/16/12 05:41, NeilBrown wrote: > >>> and as the bad block code is > >>> clearly still buggy, I probably don't want to rush it out :-) > >> > >> The bad block code is buggy... the one in the kernel or the one in mdadm-3.3 > >> ? > >> 'cause I am currently using an array created with bad block log on kernel > >> 3.4.3... > >> > >> Thanks
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
