Re: mdadm ddf questions
flat view
From: NeilBrown <hidden>
Date: 2011-03-02 22:26:03
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 08:41:02 +0100 Albert Pauw [off-list ref] wrote:
I experimented a bit further, and may have found an error in mdadm. Again, this was my setup: - OS Fedora 14 fully updated, running in VirtualBox - mdadm version 3.1.4, fully updated (as of today) from the git repo - Five virtual disks, 1 GB each, to use I created two raid sets out of one ddf container: mdadm -C /dev/md127 -l container -e ddf -n 5 /dev/sd[b-f] mdadm -C /dev/md1 -l 1 -n 2 /dev/md127 mdadm -C /dev/md2 -l 2 -n 3 /dev/md127 Disks sdb and sdc were used for the RAID 1 set, disks sdd, sde, sdf were used for the RAID 5 set. All were fine and the command mdadm -E /dev/md127 showed all disks active/Online Now I failed one of the disks of md1: mdadm -f /dev/md1 /dev/sdb Indeed, looking at /proc/mdstat I saw the disk marked failed [F] before it was automatically removed within a second (a bit weird). Now comes the weirdest part, mdadm -E /dev/md127 did show one disk as "active/Online, Failed" but this was disk sdd which is part of the other RAID set!
Yes .. that is weird. I can reproduce this easily. I had a look through the code and it looks right so there must be something subtle... I'll look more closely next wee when I'll have more time.
When I removed the correct disk, which can only be done from the container:
mdadm -r /dev/md127 /dev/sdb
the command mdadm -E /dev/md127 showed the 5 disks, the entry for sdb
didn't had a device but was still
"active/Online" and sdd was marked Failed:
Physical Disks : 5
Number RefNo Size Device
Type/State
0 d8a4179c
1015808K active/Online
1 5d58f191 1015808K /dev/sdc
active/Online
2 267b2f97 1015808K /dev/sdd
active/Online. Failed
3 3e34307b 1015808K /dev/sde
active/Online
4 6a4fc28f 1015808K /dev/sdf
active/Online
When I try to mark sdd as failed, mdadm tells me that it did it, but
/proc/mdstat doesn't show the disk as failed,
everything is still running. I also am not able to remove it, as it is
in use (obviously).
So it looks like there are some errors in here.Thanks! NeilBrown