From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bill Davidsen Subject: Re: some non critical problems... (1. mdadm segfault -> write-mostly, 2. smart?) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 14:01:31 -0400 Message-ID: <4C94FE7B.1050009@tmr.com> References: <20100906143308.2e1a9291@atak.bl.pg.gda.pl> <20100908114415.6ac8bcb9@atak.bl.pg.gda.pl> <20100914151347.3c387cbd@atak.bl.pg.gda.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20100914151347.3c387cbd@atak.bl.pg.gda.pl> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Janek Kozicki Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Janek Kozicki wrote: > Janek Kozicki said: (by the date of Wed, 8 Sep 2010 11:44:15 +0200) > > >> Umm... to reiterate one of my questions in above email: >> >> >> >>> md1 : active raid1 sdc1[3](W) sdb1[5](W) >>> 9767416 blocks super 1.0 [2/2] [UU] >>> bitmap: 6/150 pages [24KB], 32KB chunk >>> >> Is it possible to disable that (W) --write-mostly flag? Does it >> decrease performance or something, if both devices in the array are >> set to (W) ? >> > this seems to have fixed it: > > mdadm --fail /dev/md1 /dev/sdb1 > mdadm --remove /dev/md1 /dev/sdb1 > mdadm --zero-superblock /dev/sdb1 > mdadm --add --readwrite /dev/md1 /dev/sdb1 > > > Sorry for a late question, but in adding this to my notes, I realized I wasn't clear on why this flag moved to the other partitions. Are you, and if so can you clarify? -- Bill Davidsen "We can't solve today's problems by using the same thinking we used in creating them." - Einstein