* Alan Cox ([email protected]) wrote: > On Llu, 2005-05-30 at 03:47, Mikulas Patocka wrote: > > > In article <[email protected]> you wrote: > > > > I think Linux should stop accessing all disks in RAID-5 array if two disks > > > > fail and not write "this array is dead" in superblocks on remaining disks, > > > > efficiently destroying the whole array. > > It discovered the disks had failed because they had outstanding I/O that > failed to complete and errorred. At that point your stripes *are* > inconsistent. If it didn't mark them as failed then you wouldn't know it > was corrupted after a power restore. You can then clean it fsck it, > restore it, use mdadm as appropriate to restore the volume and check it. Could that I/O be backed out when it's discovered that there's too many dead disks for the array to be kept online anymore? Just a thought, Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
- References:
- Re: RAID-5 design bug (or misfeature)
- From: Bernd Eckenfels <[email protected]>
- Re: RAID-5 design bug (or misfeature)
- From: Mikulas Patocka <[email protected]>
- Re: RAID-5 design bug (or misfeature)
- From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>
- Re: RAID-5 design bug (or misfeature)
- Prev by Date: Possible GPL Violation
- Next by Date: Re: what is the -RT tree
- Previous by thread: Re: RAID-5 design bug (or misfeature)
- Next by thread: Re: RAID-5 design bug (or misfeature)
- Index(es):
 |