Re: Re: fr1-2.16 patch for 2.6.10 kernel

"Also sprach denis bonnenfant:"
> I patched md and raid1 :
> 
> here is a fail /mount /add cycle :

You are saying it seems to work?

> 
> now a fail/add cycle...
> 
> raid1: Disk failure on sda1, disabling device.
>          Operation continuing on 1 devices
> raid1: made bitmap de64e200 at events 0:23e
> md0: md_check_recovery 2: repair bit 0 on sb f7fbd380 preserved
> md: trying to hot-add unknown-block(8,1) to md0 ...
> md0: repair of faulty disk 800001!
> md: trying to remove unknown-block(8,1) from md0 ...
> md0: notifying dev 800001 it is no longer in array
> md: unbind<sda1>
> md: export_rdev(sda1)
> md 1205: unlock_rdev nulls bdev
> md: WARNING: delaying free of exported rdev de64e640
> md 1197: lock_rdev restores bdev 800001
> sda1 (read) [events: 0000023e]
> md: old uuid 5dc1267b 788f7499 cd49d3c0 d06f0b96
> md: new uuid 5dc1267b 788f7499 cd49d3c0 d06f0b96
> md0: repairing old mirror component 800001 (disk 574 >= bitmap 556)

Looks good.

> md: bind<sda1>
> md0: notifying dev 800001 it is now in array
> md0: set repair bit to 1 on superblock f7fbd380
> md0: md_check_recovery 2: repair bit 100 on sb f7fbd380 preserved
> raid1: testing p->rdev de64e640
> raid1: testing p->rdev->bdev 00000000
> raid1: late free of exported rdev de64e640
> RAID1 conf printout:
>   --- wd:1 rd:2
>   disk 0, wo:1, o:1, dev:sda1
>   disk 1, wo:0, o:1, dev:sdb1
> md: syncing RAID array md0 (sb f7fbd380)
> md: minimum _guaranteed_ reconstruction speed: 10000000 KB/sec/disc.
> md: using maximum available idle IO bandwith (but not more than 200000 
> KB/sec) for reconstruction.
> md: using 128k window, over a total of 489856 blocks.
> md0: repair bit set on sb so retained bitmap de64e200
> raid1: skipped clean sectors 0-490751
> raid1: synced dirty sectors 490752-491519
> raid1: skipped clean sectors 491520-979711

Looks not so bad.

> md: md0: sync done.
> 
> 
> The behavior is exactly the same as friday, bitmap seems to be still 
> remanent.   But this was not the suject of this patch, i guess.

Wel, that certainly doesn't show it.  I wanted to know if the
bitmap->stop(bitmap) call makes any difference.  If it doesn't, you can
try

   remove_bitmap(conf); create_bitmap(conf);

instead (from memory).

I've also written some stats printouts for the bitmap that I can
introduce.

Peter


> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ENBD mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.community.tummy.com/mailman/listinfo/enbd
>