From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: NeilBrown Subject: Re: Are we forced to use bad blocks list? Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 11:38:59 +1000 Message-ID: <20140804113859.63b5ac90@notabene.brown> References: <53DA5340.7080507@shiftmail.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; boundary="Sig_/qYMhZ5s/3WLuYNpXZXk4QOi"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <53DA5340.7080507@shiftmail.org> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Ethan Wilson Cc: linux-raid List-Id: linux-raid.ids --Sig_/qYMhZ5s/3WLuYNpXZXk4QOi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 16:31:28 +0200 Ethan Wilson wrote: > Dear MD developers, > it seems that with mdadm 3.3.1 , if an array has bad blocks disabled=20 > (e.g. "--update=3Dno-bbl" was invoked) and we want to add a disk to that= =20 > array, e.g. a spare, that one will be created by mdadm with BBL enabled=20 > during the --add operation. >=20 > There is apparently no "--add --no-bbl" option in mdadm, so the BBL will= =20 > result in being forcibly active for that disk, it seems to me. >=20 > It is indeed possible to "--stop" the array and then "--assemble=20 > --update=3Dno-bbl" so to clear the BBL flag in all disks, but this=20 > requires stopping the array, which for a production system often is not=20 > possible, and not justified for just adding a spare. >=20 > Can I add a "feature request" to have BBL optional, and/or to default=20 > BBL presence/absence so that it conforms to the presence/absence of BBLs= =20 > in the other disks of the array which is already running? >=20 > The same problem probably happens when mdadm monitor daemon moves spares= =20 > among the spare-group: it should probably understand if the receiving=20 > array is configured for BBL or not, and add a spare of the same type. >=20 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 --Sig_/qYMhZ5s/3WLuYNpXZXk4QOi Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQIVAwUBU97kMznsnt1WYoG5AQK0XxAAsH9bCLh8akvzTKcsknZDleEkc9uT+zU6 hojdHYBpqVH/FiCVfdHwzot1dOqoDRiMaSfoZoXMqwJRhxz8DnED1EqUL/J8/xkO HMuf3BA0gYWWerbfAsAnZMOBC5MZY15qBrKfuGEZUYO/MTZWtGw+6JFOaeb8eRWF N2oTtiHGup7TKfF84ylDS8aqdDPQHtbOrdArfKfm/B7ZVloh7iAGSfcISZ/5n0Er aJy3zR76DjwxvwTDvH4nYde4/NDnmIeH2e0oUfkcBcm1UnMuEq1sYOGxBxSRan5f rUR4XOkhCMNoT5RzGdUp6bQAuwz4GoyCl6J/MXcaRBNVgdYzVNtVMpkF2nj8Y0iM PNxYEHoNAes03rVVrpAoaM/p2QcB9oRws7RpYbFu++t+S07rGsVqgrEZaLaxPBV2 sTjdUJzkDw/PS0N7+UvkIVlXDLlvKGI/j9WFEgasnWvZWjeQYoi4KXrfKAMBtk29 pUTOy0Snmoh4BXyNw7aOBiJS4yqtBM1oFoPTnCA2bJqfhAnU1+xs1TVmls8Epeee NxhEJMZtxRl/WOhyChiity8WyZUB4hKycAM3KyvkRtUnD11TraYyotXMt8xBCOIO 70+s12sV/FycS5aWReKmG3p8Mpo3WutpiEg69e59bJuygldvfX702vDsCu8P/TLT A5QG1LQG05g= =25Kw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/qYMhZ5s/3WLuYNpXZXk4QOi--