----- Original Message ----- > From: "Joe Lawrence" <joe.lawrence@xxxxxxxxxxx> > To: "Xiao Ni" <xni@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: "NeilBrown" <neilb@xxxxxxx>, linux-raid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Bill Kuzeja" <william.kuzeja@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:56:50 AM > Subject: Re: RAID1 removing failed disk returns EBUSY > > On Sun, 18 Jan 2015 21:33:50 -0500 > Xiao Ni <xni@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Joe Lawrence" <joe.lawrence@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > To: "Xiao Ni" <xni@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: "NeilBrown" <neilb@xxxxxxx>, linux-raid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Bill > > > Kuzeja" <william.kuzeja@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 11:10:31 PM > > > Subject: Re: RAID1 removing failed disk returns EBUSY > > > > > > On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 00:20:12 -0500 > > > Xiao Ni <xni@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Joe > > > > > > > > Thanks for reminding me. I didn't do that. Now it can remove > > > > successfully after writing > > > > "idle" to sync_action. > > > > > > > > I thought wrongly that the patch referenced in this mail is fixed > > > > for > > > > the problem. > > > > > > So it sounds like even with 3.18 and a new mdadm, this bug still > > > persists? > > > > > > -- Joe > > > > > > -- > > > > Hi Joe > > > > I'm a little confused now. Does the patch > > 45eaf45dfa4850df16bc2e8e7903d89021137f40 from linux-stable > > resolve the problem? > > > > My environment is: > > > > [root@dhcp-12-133 mdadm]# mdadm --version > > mdadm - v3.3.2-18-g93d3bd3 - 18th December 2014 (this is the newest > > upstream) > > [root@dhcp-12-133 mdadm]# uname -r > > 3.18.2 > > > > > > My steps are: > > > > [root@dhcp-12-133 mdadm]# lsblk > > sdb 8:16 0 931.5G 0 disk > > └─sdb1 8:17 0 5G 0 part > > sdc 8:32 0 186.3G 0 disk > > sdd 8:48 0 931.5G 0 disk > > └─sdd1 8:49 0 5G 0 part > > [root@dhcp-12-133 mdadm]# mdadm -CR /dev/md0 -l1 -n2 /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdd1 > > --assume-clean > > mdadm: Note: this array has metadata at the start and > > may not be suitable as a boot device. If you plan to > > store '/boot' on this device please ensure that > > your boot-loader understands md/v1.x metadata, or use > > --metadata=0.90 > > mdadm: Defaulting to version 1.2 metadata > > mdadm: array /dev/md0 started. > > > > Then I unplug the disk. > > > > [root@dhcp-12-133 mdadm]# lsblk > > sdc 8:32 0 186.3G 0 disk > > sdd 8:48 0 931.5G 0 disk > > └─sdd1 8:49 0 5G 0 part > > └─md0 9:0 0 5G 0 raid1 > > [root@dhcp-12-133 mdadm]# echo faulty > /sys/block/md0/md/dev-sdb1/state > > [root@dhcp-12-133 mdadm]# echo remove > /sys/block/md0/md/dev-sdb1/state > > -bash: echo: write error: Device or resource busy > > [root@dhcp-12-133 mdadm]# echo idle > /sys/block/md0/md/sync_action > > [root@dhcp-12-133 mdadm]# echo remove > /sys/block/md0/md/dev-sdb1/state > > > > > > Now after I set idle to sync_action, it can be removed as you said in > > the mail. > > It's a good workaround. Is this OK? > > > > Best Regards > > Xiao > > Hi Xiao, > > According to my notes, the "idle" sync_action was always a viable > workaround, with or with this change. > > Neil's patch should have made it possible to issue only a > "faulty" and "remove" to remove the RAID component. > > I don't have an exact version, but it appears that my mdadm version was > an upstream git from Oct 27-th timeframe. > > -- Joe > Joe Thanks for the explanation. So echo "idle" to sync_action is a workaround without the patch. It looks like the patch is not enough to fix the problem. Do you have a try with the new patch? Is the problem still exist in your environment? If your environment have no problem, can you give me the version number? I'll have a try with the same version too. Best Regards Xiao -- 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
