From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Greaves Subject: Re: waiting for recovery to complete Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 12:16:30 +0100 Message-ID: <4264E88E.7020202@dgreaves.com> References: <20050413085056.GP21278@eychenne.org> <4262A19A.9010909@nsr500.net> <20050419102810.GH3103@eychenne.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20050419102810.GH3103@eychenne.org> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: rv@eychenne.org Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Herv=E9 Eychenne wrote: > On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 10:49:14AM -0700, Tim Moore wrote: >>The recovery daemon adjusts reconstruction speed dynamically accordin= g to=20 >>available system resources. >>Disk I/O is somewhat slower but works just fine. You don't have to w= ait. >=20 >=20 > So I don't have to wait to take the disk out, as the recovery will > continue with embedded disk battery and wireless bus connection? > How cool... ;-) Your original phrasing looked (to me too) like you thought you couldn't= =20 use the raid whilst it was reconstructing (I'm still not convinced you=20 realise this so, to be clear: "whilst mdadm is rebuilding the array you= =20 can use the array as normal with no risk of data corruption. You do=20 _not_ have to wait for resync to finish before remounting and using the= =20 device.") Tim's response told you you had no need to be alerted when it was OK=20 since you had no need to stop working in the first place. (And why are you wanting to take a disk out after you just synced it? -= =20 no, don't answer that...) Now it looks like you just want to know when it's done for your own=20 peace of mind, so... >=20 > Well... more seriously, I can't believe this question doesn't raise > any interest, even if it seems like it does not. :-( well, once recovery has started I don't *really* care when it finishes. > Does everyone really type cat /proc/mdstat from time to time?? > How clumsy... And yes, I do :) (well, actually I optimise to ) > I just want to chat about the best way to add a backend for this kind > of feature, so we could implement that properly... (and yes, that is > definitely _nedded_ if you want to do things right) If you want to monitor _properly_ then use nagios (or monit) Or since mdadm already uses -F to follow and notify on errors, then I=20 suggest you start hacking other alert options in there... David --=20 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html