On Feb 24, 2014, at 11:30 PM, NeilBrown wrote: > On Sat, 1 Feb 2014 09:35:20 -0500 Nate Dailey <nate.dailey@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> If an LVM raid1 recovery is interrupted by deactivating the LV, when the >> LV is reactivated it comes up with both members in sync--the recovery >> never completes. >> >> I've been trying to figure out how to fix this. Does this approach look >> okay? I'm not sure what else to use to determine that a member disk is >> out of sync. It looks like if disk_recovery_offset in the superblock >> were updated during the recovery, that would also cause it to resume >> after interruption--but MD skips the recovery target disk when writing >> superblocks, so this doesn't work. >> >> Comments? > > I know it is confusing, but this should really have gone to dm-devel rather > than linux-raid, to make sure Jon Brassow see it (hi Jon!). > > Setting recovery_offset to 0 certainly looks wrong, it should be set to > sb->disk_recovery_offset > like the code just above your change. > Why does the code there not meet your need. > > Jon: can you help? Sure, thanks for forwarding. Could you describe first how you are creating the problem? When I create a RAID1 LV, deactivate it, and reactivate it; I don't see it skip the sync. Also, if I replace a single drive and cycle the LV, I don't see it skip the sync. What steps am I missing? brassow -- 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
