From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kasper Dupont <61795653253942064414@expires.08.sep.2006.kasperd.net> Subject: Re: No syncing after crash. Is this a software raid bug? Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 12:18:35 +0100 Message-ID: <20060307111835.GA15648@hactar.lan> References: <20060301124432.GA3591@hactar.lan> <20060301215641.GA27042@hactar.lan> <20060303073016.GA662@hactar.lan> <20060303144824.GA15672@hactar.lan> <20060304131609.GA4064@erwin.lan> <20060307104704.GD2976@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060307104704.GD2976@redhat.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Heinz Mauelshagen Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On 07/03/06 11.47, Heinz Mauelshagen wrote: > On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 02:16:11PM +0100, Kasper Dupont wrote: > > > If it relies on static page content during updates of its mirrors= , it > > > need to take a private copy of the page(s). > >=20 > > And by that you mean that raid5 and raid6 must copy the page > > contents before writing it to disk? >=20 > Yes. > They need to do it anayway in order to calculate parity blocks. OK, I'll do some testing with raid5 then. I want to know if it behaves differently from raid1 in this respect. --=20 Kasper Dupont -- Rigtige m=E6nd skriver deres egne backupprogrammer #define _(_)"d.%.4s%."_"2s" /* This is my new email address */ char*_=3D"@2kaspner"_()"%03"_("4s%.")"t\n";printf(_+11,_+6,_,6,_+2,_+7,= _+6); - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html