From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: NeilBrown Subject: Re: On mdadm 3.2 and bad-block-log Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 11:49:16 +1000 Message-ID: <20120717114916.46263d92@notabene.brown> References: <4FD7738D.3040403@shiftmail.org> <20120716134138.0f1c9cfc@notabene.brown> <5003C5BC.3070609@shiftmail.org> <5003D73B.3010609@shiftmail.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/EfcxRsIo0JtIXwe7=uCwr9z"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5003D73B.3010609@shiftmail.org> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Asdo Cc: Alexander Lyakas , linux-raid List-Id: linux-raid.ids --Sig_/EfcxRsIo0JtIXwe7=uCwr9z Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 10:56:27 +0200 Asdo wrote: > Right, that's the reason of my question. > Neil wrote "I probably don't want to rush it out" so that would mean=20 > that the buggy code is not "out" yet. > So that would point to mdadm-3.3 because the bad block code of the=20 > kernel is already "out". > However as you say the bad block code in mdadm-3.3 is very simple so=20 > it's strange that it could be buggy. >=20 > Now thinking at myself: if there were bugs in the mdadm-3.3 I probably=20 > have dodged them because I was able to create the array. > However if there are known bugs in the kernel code our data is still at=20 > risk so i'd rather ask. Yes, there is a degree to which your data is at risk. This is always the case with new code. If you upgrade to new -stable kernels as they become available, that should minimise your risk as any fix that could risk data or stability is backport= ed to these -stable kernels. I don't know of any particularly serious bugs that have been found - they mostly are triggered by unusual conditions. However unusual conditions do happen. Thank you for using and testing the code. Has md found and recorded any bad blocks for you, or are your bad-block logs still empty? NeilBrown > FWIW I am not using mdadm-3.3 as monitoring daemon: the daemon is=20 > mdadm-3.2 , I don't know if this "helps". >=20 > Thank you > A. >=20 >=20 > On 07/16/12 09:55, Alexander Lyakas wrote: > > The mdadm code only reserves some space for bad-blocks log and > > notifies the kernel that this feature is enabled during array > > creation. > > > > On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Asdo wrote: > >> On 07/16/12 05:41, NeilBrown wrote: > >>> and as the bad block code is > >>> clearly still buggy, I probably don't want to rush it out :-) > >> > >> The bad block code is buggy... the one in the kernel or the one in mda= dm-3.3 > >> ? > >> 'cause I am currently using an array created with bad block log on ker= nel > >> 3.4.3... > >> > >> Thanks --Sig_/EfcxRsIo0JtIXwe7=uCwr9z Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) iQIVAwUBUATEnDnsnt1WYoG5AQJrPw/9Fdh+uNlsv5wnp48ENZXos5Pl0/OD3FKn tPwtB7IHmVx9xIvWseY/q9jxkFiZ4cU6YBNEagelZ2+D/5+qCIXKrcGgZp++k3U4 QTwSb+LEOphfgT3nTroK+apuDw28gpx6pozAn4ir6JTDr5E7SZuxUC/dsJ99jU+P Fk7bDBfcBbAJRlABuAWBz1mN8Siy+xKxwXMsK/haAtPYpKuoWNxETzPSBlbO0cWF WXqg3ryXCF3YKu/DOJNcA1WE3z330+pBx+JIGyT5iOAEsES5XDmgIccoJxmfukVf 83h/kw6Y5A9KbPpoAWPYmhNVTWhmFVPUJBi457jnfzMAbS0gn4QYTE9Lye2z87r4 E+I4JGq5MP9cE70QUCJ6HtrjJyChFEnpyIvSkowBZGxNExx8GNLaR2aj+uXs2c1A NA1b6LRPl8ueu2d2fwBFFMHSNrKvkMUZbv0T7Bc20qMi/Jp7ILMOf6OdMxiGaAp0 OYBots/zgESXbvEbR5tXyK2qdLLC6cYc1vxLAbvm7JB6pQ879UTA6G+wayWSZciS +6eV3tL76jO78alMsfWA/xNnT43t2/PEMaw70DdFcWI0ELSNKw5UC/eCZTMfhO9g xRYoOgdcg+BYmFLQZCUr7M7CC4Dx+5JhE6L/Bs6tk9HjR38IKDxfX99pNwB7pH5C OF42RHeD2RI= =hRTc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/EfcxRsIo0JtIXwe7=uCwr9z--