From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ray Van Dolson Subject: Re: raid1 + 2.6.27.7 issues Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 09:53:49 -0800 Message-ID: <20090209175348.GA1462@esri.com> References: <20090209165940.GA805@esri.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jon Nelson Cc: LinuxRaid List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 09:49:21AM -0800, Jon Nelson wrote: > On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 08:47:33AM -0800, Iain Rauch wrote: > >> > The typical use case for me is this: I will run the array (/dev/md11) in > >> > degraded mode (without /dev/nbd0) for a week or so. > >> > At some point, I will try to synchronize the underlying devices. > >> > >> Sounds like rsync is more suited to your application. > >> Why are you using RAID? > >> > >> Iain > > > > Seems academic to me. Whatever the reasons, the above _should_ work > > should it not? > > > > Could this be NBD's fault somehow? > > I don't think so. This is how I *remove* the nbd device: > > mdadm /dev/md11 --fail /dev/nbd0 > sleep 3 > mdadm /dev/md11 --remove /dev/nbd0 > > and then finally nbd-client -d /dev/nbd0 > > If necessary, I can try to simulate the problem by using a local > logical volume or some such. Don't want to send you on a wild goose chase, but I'd be interested to see the results of that and maybe the results of the same with an iSCSI backed blocked device vs nbd. I just thought there were some subtle differences between NBD and other "SAN" over network protocols. No idea how they'd play into the scenario you're describing however. Ray