Re: RAID5 losing initial synchronization on restart when one disk is spare
From: Hubert Verstraete <hidden>
Date: 2008-06-12 09:12:22
Neil Brown wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
On Wednesday June 4, hubskml@free.fr wrote:quoted
Hello According to mdadm's man page: "When creating a RAID5 array, mdadm will automatically create a degraded array with an extra spare drive. This is because building the spare into a degraded array is in general faster than resyncing the parity on a non-degraded, but not clean, array. This feature can be over-ridden with the --force option." Unfortunately, I'm seeing a kind of bug when I create a RAID5 array with an internal bitmap, then stop the array before the initial synchronization is done and restart the array. 1° When I create the array with an internal bitmap: mdadm -C /dev/md_d1 -e 1.2 -l 5 -n 4 -b internal -R /dev/sd? I see the last disk as a spare disk. After the restart of the array, all disks are seen active and the array is not continuing the aborted synchronization! Note that I did not use the --assume-clean option. 2° When I create the array without a bitmap: mdadm -C /dev/md_d1 -e 1.2 -l 5 -n 4 -R /dev/sd? I see the last disk as a spare disk. After the restart of the array, the spare disk is still a spare disk and the array continues the synchronization where it had stopped. In the case 1°, is this a bug or did I miss something?Thanks for the detailed report. Yes, this is a bug. The following patch fixes it, though I'm not 100% sure this is the right fix (it may cause too much resync in some cases, which is better than not enough, but not ideal). NeilBrown Signed-off-by: Neil Brown <redacted> diff .prev/drivers/md/raid5.c ./drivers/md/raid5.c--- .prev/drivers/md/raid5.c 2008-06-10 10:27:51.000000000 +1000 +++ ./drivers/md/raid5.c 2008-06-12 09:34:25.000000000 +1000@@ -4094,7 +4094,9 @@ static int run(mddev_t *mddev) " disk %d\n", bdevname(rdev->bdev,b), raid_disk); working_disks++; - } + } else + /* Cannot rely on bitmap to complete recovery */ + conf->fullsync = 1; } /*
Thanks Neil, I can confirm this solves this issue. Regarding the eventual unwanted resync, I can't say. Regards, Hubert Verstraete -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html