On Monday August 6, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Thanks for your help, any idea when this fix will make it upstream?
>
Thanks for the confirmation yes, I guess I should send it upstream
soon. Probably early next week at the latest.
NeilBrown
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "
On 8/3/07, Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday August 3, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > I hand-patched your change into a 2.6.20.1 kernel (I'd imagine your
> > patch is against current git). I didn't see any difference because
> > unfortunately both of my full resync scenarios incl
On Friday August 3, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I hand-patched your change into a 2.6.20.1 kernel (I'd imagine your
> patch is against current git). I didn't see any difference because
> unfortunately both of my full resync scenarios included stopping a
> degraded raid after either: 1) having fa
On 8/3/07, Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday July 23, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On 7/23/07, Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Can you test this out and report a sequence of events that causes a
> > > full resync?
> >
> > Sure, using an internal-bitmap-enabled raid1 with
On Monday July 23, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 7/23/07, Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Can you test this out and report a sequence of events that causes a
> > full resync?
>
> Sure, using an internal-bitmap-enabled raid1 with 2 loopback devices
> on a stock 2.6.20.1 kernel, the follow
On 7/23/07, Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Saturday July 21, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Could you share the other situations where a bitmap-enabled raid1
> _must_ perform a full recovery?
When you add a new drive. When you create a new bitmap. I think that
should be all.
> - Corr
On Saturday July 21, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 6/1/06, NeilBrown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > When an array has a bitmap, a device can be removed and re-added
> > and only blocks changes since the removal (as recorded in the bitmap)
> > will be resynced.
>
> Neil,
>
> Does the same appl
On 6/1/06, NeilBrown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
When an array has a bitmap, a device can be removed and re-added
and only blocks changes since the removal (as recorded in the bitmap)
will be resynced.
Neil,
Does the same apply when a bitmap-enabled raid1's member goes faulty?
Meaning even if
