From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Molle Bestefich Subject: Re: Spare disk could not sleep / standby Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 06:20:36 +0100 Message-ID: <62b0912f0503072120776e0b56@mail.gmail.com> References: <422D327D.11718.F8DB3@localhost> <200503080414.j284EG510309@www.watkins-home.com> <16941.11443.107607.735855@cse.unsw.edu.au> Reply-To: Molle Bestefich Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <16941.11443.107607.735855@cse.unsw.edu.au> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Neil Brown wrote: > It is writes, but don't be scared. It is just super-block updates. > > In 2.6, the superblock is marked 'clean' whenever there is a period of > about 20ms of no write activity. This increases the chance on a > resync won't be needed after a crash. > (unfortunately) the superblocks on the spares need to be updated too. Ack, one of the cool things that a linux md array can do that others can't is imho that the disks can spin down when inactive. Granted, it's mostly for home users who want their desktop RAID to be quiet when it's not in use, and their basement multi-terabyte facility to use a minimum of power when idling, but anyway. Is there any particular reason to update the superblocks every 20 msecs when they're already marked clean?