From: Mike Accetta <maccetta@laurelnetworks.com>
To: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: detecting read errors after RAID1 check operation
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 23:27:21 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <15506.1187234841@mdt.ecitele.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:55:14 +1000." <18115.33874.732489.977468@notabene.brown>
Neil Brown writes:
> On Wednesday August 15, maccetta@laurelnetworks.com wrote:
> >
> > There are already files like /sys/block/md_d0/md/dev-sdb/errors in /sys
> > which would be very convenient to consult but according to the kernel
> > driver implementation the error counts reported there are apparently
> > for corrected errors and not relevant for read errors during a "check"
> > operation.
> >
>
> When 'check' hits a read error, an attempt is made to 'correct' it by
> over-writing with correct data. This will either increase the
> 'errors' count or fail the drive completely.
>
> What 'check' doesn't do (and 'repair' does) it react when it find that
> successful reads of all drives (in a raid1) do not match.
>
> So just use the 'errors' number - it is exactly what you want.
This happens in our old friend sync_request_write()? I'm dealing with
simulated errors and will dig further to make sure that is not perturbing
the results but I don't see any 'errors' effect. This is with our
patched 2.6.20 raid1.c. The logic doesn't seem to be any different in
2.6.22 from what I can tell, though.
This fragment
if (j < 0 || test_bit(MD_RECOVERY_CHECK, &mddev->recovery)) {
sbio->bi_end_io = NULL;
rdev_dec_pending(conf->mirrors[i].rdev, mddev);
} else {
/* fixup the bio for reuse */
...
}
looks suspicously like any correction attempt for 'check' is being
short-circuited to me, regardless of whether or not there was a read
error. Actually, even if the rewrite was not being short-circuited,
I still don't see the path that would update 'corrected_errors' in this
case. There are only two raid1.c sites that touch 'corrected_errors', one
is in fix_read_errors() and the other is later in sync_request_write().
With my limited understanding of how this all works, neither of these
paths would seem to apply here.
--
Mike Accetta
ECI Telecom Ltd.
Transport Networking Division, US (previously Laurel Networks)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-08-16 3:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-08-15 22:03 detecting read errors after RAID1 check operation Mike Accetta
2007-08-15 22:55 ` Neil Brown
2007-08-16 3:27 ` Mike Accetta [this message]
2007-08-17 2:09 ` Neil Brown
2007-08-17 21:31 ` Mike Accetta
2007-08-25 14:27 ` Mike Snitzer
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=15506.1187234841@mdt.ecitele.com \
--to=maccetta@laurelnetworks.com \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=neilb@suse.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.