From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Peter Kovari" Subject: RE: A few questions regarding RAID5/RAID6 recovery Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 18:13:49 +0200 Message-ID: <000301cc042c$edcfc330$c96f4990$@priv.hu> References: <002001cc0370$cd40ac90$67c205b0$@priv.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Language: hu Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids -----Original Message----- From: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of David Brown Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 9:22 AM To: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: A few questions regarding RAID5/RAID6 recovery > You are not alone in these concerns. A couple of months ago there was a > long thread here about a roadmap for md raid. The first two entries are > a "bad block log" to allow reading of good blocks from a failing disk, > and "hot replace" to sync a replacement disk before removing the failing > one. Being on a roadmap doesn't mean that these features will make it > to md raid in the near future - but it does mean that there are already > rough plans to solve these problems. > Thank you David, this explains a lot. I hope we'll see this some day implemented. Can you comment on my first question too please? Basically i'm just curious to know if there is a way to stop and restart the rebuilding process (and change/re-create the array in between them). Btw, i read somewhere, that "--stop", then "--create --assume-clean" on an array works only on v0.9 superblocks, because v1.x overwrites existing data during create. It doesn't make sense for me - but i'm not sure -, so is this true? If not, then is it enough to use the same suberblock version for "--create" to make this work without data loss? Thanks, Peter