Re: Bogus entry in mdadm bad blocks list and question about particular commit

[Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>]

Sarah Newman <srn@prgmr.com> writes:
> I added some more drives to a raid 1 last night where some devices had existing bad block entries. There was nothing of particular interest in
> /var/log/messages. Afterwards there is:
>
> $ sudo /sbin/mdadm --examine-badblocks /dev/sdl1
> Bad-blocks on /dev/sdl1:
>    11986270392325491 for 51 sectors
>
> The total number of sectors on the drive is 3907029168.
>
> The start sector in the bad blocks list is 2a95730cea9573 in hex, I don't know if that string has any special significance or not.
>
> $ sudo /sbin/mdadm --examine /dev/sdl1
> /dev/sdl1:
>           Magic : a92b4efc
>         Version : 1.0
>     Feature Map : 0x8
>
>      Raid Level : raid1
>    Raid Devices : 11
>
>  Avail Dev Size : 20971368 (10.00 GiB 10.74 GB)
>      Array Size : 10485632 (10.00 GiB 10.74 GB)
>   Used Dev Size : 20971264 (10.00 GiB 10.74 GB)
>    Super Offset : 20971504 sectors
>    Unused Space : before=0 sectors, after=232 sectors
>           State : clean
>
>     Update Time : Tue Feb  2 10:50:33 2016
>   Bad Block Log : 512 entries available at offset -8 sectors - bad blocks present.
>        Checksum : 4092aabf - correct
>          Events : 143560
>
>
>    Device Role : Active device 9
>    Array State : AAAAAAAAAAA ('A' == active, '.' == missing, 'R' == replacing)
>
> The kernel is built from the Xen4CentOS 3.18.21-17 kernel, but there
> are no changes related to md in the code.
>
> I looked for differences in between 3.18.21 and stable 3.18.y and the
> only interesting thing looked like e9206476ace "md/raid1:
> submit_bio_wait() returns 0 on success". I don't think that's a
> smoking gun for the bogus bad blocks entry. But without that commit,
> mdadm with bad blocks enabled is completely broken if there are write
> errors such that successful writes are reported as errors and vice
> versa, is that correct?

Sarah,

If I remember correctly, yes then badblocks handling was pretty wedged
without that patch since it broke the narrowing down of the problem. If
you have to run such an old kernel, you really ought to backport
681ab4696062f5aa939c9e04d058732306a97176 and
203d27b0226a05202438ddb39ef0ef1acb14a759 if you have raid1 and/or raid10
arrays.

Jes