Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965038AbWHHTRJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Aug 2006 15:17:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965042AbWHHTRI (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Aug 2006 15:17:08 -0400 Received: from khc.piap.pl ([195.187.100.11]:63173 "EHLO khc.piap.pl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965038AbWHHTRH (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Aug 2006 15:17:07 -0400 To: Michael Tokarev Cc: Neil Brown , Alexandre Oliva , linux-raid , linux-kernel Subject: Re: modifying degraded raid 1 then re-adding other members is bad References: <17624.29070.246605.213021@cse.unsw.edu.au> <44D8732C.2060207@tls.msk.ru> From: Krzysztof Halasa Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 21:17:05 +0200 In-Reply-To: <44D8732C.2060207@tls.msk.ru> (Michael Tokarev's message of "Tue, 08 Aug 2006 15:19:08 +0400") Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 774 Lines: 20 Michael Tokarev writes: > Why we're updating it BACKWARD in the first place? Another scenario: 1 disk (of 2) is removed, another is added, RAID-1 is rebuilt, then the disk added last is removed and replaced by the disk which was removed first. Would it trigger this problem? > Also, why, when we adding something to the array, the event counter is > checked -- should it resync regardless? I think it's a full start, not a hot add. For hot add contents of the new disk should be ignored. -- Krzysztof Halasa - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/