On 22.11.2012 10:43, Sebastian Riemer wrote: > On 21.11.2012 20:41, Ross Boylan wrote: >> On Wed, 2012-11-21 at 18:47 +0100, Sebastian Riemer wrote: >> >>> Yes, sometimes hardware has only a short issue and operates as expected >>> afterwards. Therefore, there is an error threshold. It could be very >>> annoying to zero the superblock and to resync everything only because >>> there was a short controller issue or something similar. Without this >>> you also couldn't remove and re-add devices for testing. >> So if my intention is to remove the "device" (in this case, partition) >> across reboots is using sysfs as you indicated sufficient? > Yes, if you set a high number into sysfs file "errors", then you can > even keep the superblock but don't ask me how to revert this change. I > don't think that there is a "MakeGood" command. > >> Zeroing the superblock (--zero-superblock)? > That's the alternative but you loose superblock data. > >> Removing the device (mdadm --remove)? > Here you need one of the methods above additionally. Correction: This also tiggers that the device isn't assembled again after setting it faulty. There is a difference in --faulty, --stop and --faulty, --remove, --stop. >> In this particular case the partition was fine, and my thought was I >> might add it back later. But since the info would be dated, I guess >> there was no real benefit to preserving the superblock. I did want to >> preserve the data in case things went catastrophically wrong. > You don't really have a benefit of keeping the superblock. The only > useful information is to which device it belonged to. In general you > replace the failed drive and the new device is synced from the remaining > good drive. Without the superblock you can read the actual data anyway > starting from the data offset. > -- 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
