On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 10:21:45 +0200 Asdo <asdo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 07/17/12 03:49, NeilBrown wrote: > > On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 10:56:27 +0200 Asdo<asdo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 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 am on kernel 3.4, that's "stable", right? 3.4.5 is the latest kernel in the 3.4.y stable series. It contains: - a fix for bad-block handling in RAID5 - a fix for a ref-counting bug in RAID5 that can trigger when updating the bad block list So if you are using bad-block-logs on RAID5 you should definitely upgrade to 3.4.5. If some other level ... then it is probably a good idea to upgrade anyway. > > > 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? > > Still empty for now > They are filled only on read error + failed block rewrite, right? That > will take a long time to happen... They can also be filled on a read-error during recovery of one device fails. It is quite likely that none of this will happen for years. But it might happen tomorrow. > > Thanks for your work :-) NeilBrown
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
