Re: Are we forced to use bad blocks list?

[NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1495 bytes --]

On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 16:31:28 +0200 Ethan Wilson <ethan.wilson@shiftmail.org>
wrote:

> Dear MD developers,
> it seems that with mdadm 3.3.1 , if an array has bad blocks disabled 
> (e.g. "--update=no-bbl"  was invoked) and we want to add a disk to that 
> array, e.g. a spare, that one will be created by mdadm with BBL enabled 
> during the --add operation.
> 
> There is apparently no "--add --no-bbl" option in mdadm, so the BBL will 
> result in being forcibly active for that disk, it seems to me.
> 
> It is indeed possible to "--stop" the array and then "--assemble 
> --update=no-bbl" so to clear the BBL flag in all disks, but this 
> requires stopping the array, which for a production system often is not 
> possible, and not justified for just adding a spare.
> 
> Can I add a "feature request" to have BBL optional, and/or to default 
> BBL presence/absence so that it conforms to the presence/absence of BBLs 
> in the other disks of the array which is already running?
> 
> The same problem probably happens when mdadm monitor daemon moves spares 
> among the spare-group: it should probably understand if the receiving 
> array is configured for BBL or not, and add a spare of the same type.
> 

Why don't you want bad-block-lists?

I'm not necessarily against having some why to avoid getting them
automatically ... possibly a 'policy' option in mdadm.conf.
But I'd like to make sure I understand all of your thinking first.

Thanks,
NeilBrown

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