Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030313AbWHHXcc (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Aug 2006 19:32:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965080AbWHHXcc (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Aug 2006 19:32:32 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:29112 "EHLO mx2.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965076AbWHHXcb (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Aug 2006 19:32:31 -0400 From: Neil Brown To: Krzysztof Halasa Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 08:33:24 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17625.4404.778981.728665@cse.unsw.edu.au> Cc: Michael Tokarev , Alexandre Oliva , linux-raid , linux-kernel Subject: Re: modifying degraded raid 1 then re-adding other members is bad In-Reply-To: message from Krzysztof Halasa on Tuesday August 8 References: <17624.29070.246605.213021@cse.unsw.edu.au> <44D8732C.2060207@tls.msk.ru> X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 21.4.1 X-face: [Gw_3E*Gng}4rRrKRYotwlE?.2|**#s9D 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? > No. The removing and the adding will all move the event count clearly forward and the removed drive will have an old event count and so will not be considered for easy inclusion. > > 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. See my other post for why I want to sometimes not do a recovery on a hot-add. NeilBrown - 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/