From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Mateusz Korniak <mateusz-lists@ant.gliwice.pl>
Subject: Re: force remapping a pending sector in sw raid5 array
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 22:43:04 +0100
Message-ID: <1934212.TzpEgCIeIR@matkor-lenovo>
References: <20180206181416.amo6geclrvc6ylrf@merlins.org> <20180209192928.vliiwkv6q76jf6jp@merlins.org> <1227ce39-31af-22f2-f4fa-de85466f05c7@turmel.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <1227ce39-31af-22f2-f4fa-de85466f05c7@turmel.org>
Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Phil Turmel <philip@turmel.org>
Cc: Marc MERLIN <marc@merlins.org>, Kay Diederichs <kay.diederichs@uni-konstanz.de>, Andreas Klauer <Andreas.Klauer@metamorpher.de>, Adam Goryachev <mailinglists@websitemanagers.com.au>, Roger Heflin <rogerheflin@gmail.com>, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-raid.ids

On Friday 09 of February 2018 15:13:26 Phil Turmel wrote:
> If you have bad block lists enabled in your array, MD will *never* tr=
y
> to fix the underlying sectors

As far I was able to find, failed write marks sector in BBL.=20
Does data is saved under different location when such write fails for l=
ater=20
reads?
Failed read marks sector in BBL too?=20

I am surprised to notice that I have plenty of sectors in BBL in some a=
rrays=20
which SMART reports be quite healthy, and all members passing short/lon=
g SMART=20
tests ... =20
=20
--=20
Mateusz Korniak
"(...) mam brata - powa=C5=BCny, domator, liczykrupa, hipokryta, pobo=C5=
=BCni=C5=9B,
 =09kr=C3=B3tko m=C3=B3wi=C4=85c - podpora spo=C5=82ecze=C5=84stwa."
=09=09=09=09Nikos Kazantzakis - "Grek Zorba"