Re: mdadm --wait returns while array under construction?

[NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2559 bytes --]

On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 08:43:02 -0800 Ross Boylan <ross@biostat.ucsf.edu> wrote:

> On Wed, 2012-11-21 at 08:43 +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 09:55:41 -0800 Ross Boylan <ross@biostat.ucsf.edu> wrote:
> > 
> > > While switching the disks a RAID 1 is based on I used the --wait command
> > > to wait for the rebuild to finish.  It returned immediately, but a
> > > subsequent query showed it had not been rebuilt.  Have I misunderstood
> > > something, or is this an error?
> > > 
> > > While doing these commands a much larger rebuild was going on with a
> > > different array, involving some of the same physical disks but different
> > > partitions.  The partitions being rebuilt are on different physical
> > > disks for the different arrays.
> > > 
> > > Here are the logs, with version info at the end (Debian Lenny + more
> > > recent kernel):
> > ....
> > 
> > > markov:~# uname -a
> > > Linux markov 2.6.32-5-amd64 #1 SMP Wed Jan 12 03:40:32 UTC 2011 x86_64 GNU/Linux
> > > markov:~# mdadm --version
> > > mdadm - v2.6.7.2 - 14th November 2008
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I notice that in this case, unlike the other array, the message during
> > > the rebuild (the last detail report) does not include a line like
> > > Rebuild Status : 0% complete
> > > 
> > > I just tried --wait again to see if there was some kind of race, but
> > > once again it returned immediately, though detail says the spare is
> > > rebuilding.
> > 
> > Can you test this patch to see if it fixes the problem?
> > 
> > diff --git a/Monitor.c b/Monitor.c
> > index c4d57c3..a5e7aaa 100644
> > --- a/Monitor.c
> > +++ b/Monitor.c
> > @@ -973,7 +973,7 @@ int Wait(char *dev)
> >  			if (e->devnum == devnum)
> >  				break;
> >  
> > -		if (!e || e->percent < 0) {
> > +		if (!e || e->percent == RESYNC_NONE) {
> >  			if (e && e->metadata_version &&
> >  			    strncmp(e->metadata_version, "external:", 9) == 0) {
> >  				if (is_subarray(&e->metadata_version[9]))
> > 
> > 
> > NeilBrown
> Thanks for the patch.  I take it the current behavior is expected, if
> undesirable?

Well, I didn't expect it until I looked in the code and saw the bug.  But now
I do ;-)
Yes, undesirable.

NeilBrown


> 
> I'll try to apply it, but I'm in the middle of several system upgrades
> and I may have trouble getting the source for the current system, since
> it is out of date.
> 
> I spent most of yesterday dealing with various RAID problems, which I
> will detail in a separate message.
> Thanks.
> Ross


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 828 bytes --]