On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 11:48:34 +0200 <jakub@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 07:00:44 +0200 (CEST), Mikael Abrahamsson > <swmike@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 25 Sep 2012, NeilBrown wrote: > > > >> Why do you say that "the write IO errors are invisible for the > >> filesystem"? They are certainly reported in the kernel logs that you > >> should and I'm sure an application would see them if it checked return > >> status properly. > >> > >> md is behaving as designed here. It deliberately does not fail the > >> whole array, it just fails those blocks which are no longer accessible. > > > > Would you please refer to some documentation that this behaviour is > correct? I now tried to fail several disks in raid5, raid0 and raid10-near, > in case of r0 and r10n, mdadm didn't even allow me to remove more disks > than is sufficient to access all the data. In case of r5 I was able to fail > 2 out of 3, but the array was correctly marked as FAILED and couldn't be > accessed at all. I'd expect that behaviour even in my case of raid10-far. I > can't even assmenble and run it with less than required count of disks. > Could you please be explicit about exactly how the behaviour that you think of as "correct" would differ from the current behaviour? Because I cannot really see what point you are making - I need a little help. Thanks, NeilBrown
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
