All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>
To: "Brown, Neil" <neilb@suse.de>,
	"linux-raid@vger.kernel.org" <linux-raid@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: raid10 regression: unrecoverable raids
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 11:59:55 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F6711AB.7010906@redhat.com> (raw)

Hi,

commit 2bb77736ae5dca0a189829fbb7379d43364a9dac
Author: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
Date:   Wed Jul 27 11:00:36 2011 +1000

    md/raid10: Make use of new recovery_disabled handling

Caused a serious regression making it impossible to recover certain o2
layout raid10 arrays if they get enter a double degraded state.

If I create an array like this:

root@monkeybay ~]# mdadm --create /dev/md25 --raid-devices=4 --chunk=512
--level=raid10 --layout=o2  --assume-clean  /dev/sda4 missing missing
/dev/sdd4
mdadm: Defaulting to version 1.2 metadata
mdadm: array /dev/md25 started.

Then adding a spare like this:
[root@monkeybay ~]# mdadm -a /dev/md25 /dev/sdb4
mdadm: added /dev/sdb4

The spare ends up being added into slot 4 rather than into the empty
slot 1 and the array never rebuilds.

[root@monkeybay ~]# mdadm --detail /dev/md25
/dev/md25:
        Version : 1.2
  Creation Time : Mon Mar 19 12:52:52 2012
     Raid Level : raid10
     Array Size : 39059456 (37.25 GiB 40.00 GB)
  Used Dev Size : 19529728 (18.63 GiB 20.00 GB)
   Raid Devices : 4
  Total Devices : 3
    Persistence : Superblock is persistent

    Update Time : Mon Mar 19 12:52:56 2012
          State : clean, degraded
 Active Devices : 2
Working Devices : 3
 Failed Devices : 0
  Spare Devices : 1

         Layout : offset=2
     Chunk Size : 512K

           Name : monkeybay:25  (local to host monkeybay)
           UUID : afbf95cf:7015f3ff:a788bd4d:03b0fe32
         Events : 7

    Number   Major   Minor   RaidDevice State
       0       8        4        0      active sync   /dev/sda4
       1       0        0        1      removed
       2       0        0        2      removed
       3       8       52        3      active sync   /dev/sdd4

       4       8       20        -      spare   /dev/sdb4
[root@monkeybay ~]#

This only seems to happen with o2 arrays, whereas n2 ones rebuild fine.
I can reproduce the problem if I fail drives 0 and 3 or 1 and 2. Failing
1 and 3 or 2 and 4 works. The problem shows both when creating the array
as above, or if creating it with all four drives and then failing them.

I have been staring at this for a while, but it isn't quite obvious to
me whether it is the recovery procedure that doesn't handle the double
gap properly or whether it is the re-add that doesn't take the o2 layout
into account properly.

This is a fairly serious bug as once a raid hits this state, it is no
longer possible to rebuild it even by adding more drives :(

Neil. any idea what went wrong with the new bad block handling code in
this case?

Cheers,
Jes

dmesg output:
md: bind<sda4>
md: bind<sdd4>
md/raid10:md25: active with 2 out of 4 devices
md25: detected capacity change from 0 to 39996882944
 md25:
md: bind<sdb4>
RAID10 conf printout:
 --- wd:2 rd:4
 disk 0, wo:0, o:1, dev:sda4
 disk 1, wo:1, o:1, dev:sdb4
 disk 3, wo:0, o:1, dev:sdd4
md: recovery of RAID array md25
md: minimum _guaranteed_  speed: 1000 KB/sec/disk.
md: using maximum available idle IO bandwidth (but not more than 200000
KB/sec) for recovery.
md: using 128k window, over a total of 19529728k.
md/raid10:md25: insufficient working devices for recovery.
md: md25: recovery done.
RAID10 conf printout:
 --- wd:2 rd:4
 disk 0, wo:0, o:1, dev:sda4
 disk 1, wo:1, o:1, dev:sdb4
 disk 3, wo:0, o:1, dev:sdd4
RAID10 conf printout:
 --- wd:2 rd:4
 disk 0, wo:0, o:1, dev:sda4
 disk 3, wo:0, o:1, dev:sdd4
RAID10 conf printout:
 --- wd:2 rd:4
 disk 0, wo:0, o:1, dev:sda4
 disk 2, wo:1, o:1, dev:sdb4
 disk 3, wo:0, o:1, dev:sdd4
md: recovery of RAID array md25
md: minimum _guaranteed_  speed: 1000 KB/sec/disk.
md: using maximum available idle IO bandwidth (but not more than 200000
KB/sec) for recovery.
md: using 128k window, over a total of 19529728k.
md/raid10:md25: insufficient working devices for recovery.
md: md25: recovery done.
RAID10 conf printout:
 --- wd:2 rd:4
 disk 0, wo:0, o:1, dev:sda4
 disk 2, wo:1, o:1, dev:sdb4
 disk 3, wo:0, o:1, dev:sdd4
RAID10 conf printout:
 --- wd:2 rd:4
 disk 0, wo:0, o:1, dev:sda4
 disk 3, wo:0, o:1, dev:sdd4
RAID10 conf printout:
 --- wd:2 rd:4
 disk 0, wo:0, o:1, dev:sda4
 disk 3, wo:0, o:1, dev:sdd4

             reply	other threads:[~2012-03-19 10:59 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-03-19 10:59 Jes Sorensen [this message]
2012-03-19 11:08 ` raid10 regression: unrecoverable raids NeilBrown
2012-03-19 11:15   ` Jes Sorensen

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=4F6711AB.7010906@redhat.com \
    --to=jes.sorensen@redhat.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.