Re: RAID-5 design bug (or misfeature)

[Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 940 bytes --]

* Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk) wrote:
> On Llu, 2005-05-30 at 03:47, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > > In article <Pine.LNX.4.58.0505300043540.5305@artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> you wrote:
> > > > I think Linux should stop accessing all disks in RAID-5 array if two disks
> > > > fail and not write "this array is dead" in superblocks on remaining disks,
> > > > efficiently destroying the whole array.
> 
> It discovered the disks had failed because they had outstanding I/O that
> failed to complete and errorred. At that point your stripes *are*
> inconsistent. If it didn't mark them as failed then you wouldn't know it
> was corrupted after a power restore. You can then clean it fsck it,
> restore it, use mdadm as appropriate to restore the volume and check it.

Could that I/O be backed out when it's discovered that there's too many
dead disks for the array to be kept online anymore?

	Just a thought,

		Stephen

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]