Re: modifying degraded raid 1 then re-adding other members is bad

>> Why we're updating it BACKWARD in the first place?
>
>To avoid writing to spares when it isn't needed - some people want
>their spare drives to go to sleep.

That sounds a little dangerous. What if it decrements below 0?


Jan Engelhardt
-- 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: modifying degraded raid 1 then re-adding other members is bad
    • From: Neil Brown <[email protected]>

• References:
  • modifying degraded raid 1 then re-adding other members is bad
    • From: Alexandre Oliva <[email protected]>
  • Re: modifying degraded raid 1 then re-adding other members is bad
    • From: Neil Brown <[email protected]>
  • Re: modifying degraded raid 1 then re-adding other members is bad
    • From: Michael Tokarev <[email protected]>
  • Re: modifying degraded raid 1 then re-adding other members is bad
    • From: Neil Brown <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [RFC/PATCH] revoke/frevoke system calls V2
• Next by Date: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Relative lazy atime
• Previous by thread: Re: modifying degraded raid 1 then re-adding other members is bad
• Next by thread: Re: modifying degraded raid 1 then re-adding other members is bad
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]