[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPhsuW45QLffWFsR1Fh=B2axCzSzu8qBDhN6c4TG66vyWL67=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2023 15:17:44 -0700
From: Song Liu <song@...nel.org>
To: Li Nan <linan666@...weicloud.com>
Cc: Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, yi.zhang@...wei.com,
houtao1@...wei.com, yangerkun@...wei.com,
"yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] md/raid10: prioritize adding disk to 'removed' mirror
On Mon, May 29, 2023 at 6:14 AM Li Nan <linan666@...weicloud.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 在 2023/5/29 21:00, Yu Kuai 写道:
> > Hi,
> >
> > 在 2023/05/27 17:20, linan666@...weicloud.com 写道:
> >> From: Li Nan <linan122@...wei.com>
> >>
> >> When add a new disk to raid10, it will traverse conf->mirror from start
> >> and find one of the following mirror to add:
> >> 1. mirror->rdev is set to WantReplacement and it have no replacement,
> >> set new disk to mirror->replacement.
> >> 2. no mirror->rdev, set new disk to mirror->rdev.
> >>
> >> There is a array as below (sda is set to WantReplacement):
> >>
> >> Number Major Minor RaidDevice State
> >> 0 8 0 0 active sync set-A /dev/sda
> >> - 0 0 1 removed
> >> 2 8 32 2 active sync set-A /dev/sdc
> >> 3 8 48 3 active sync set-B /dev/sdd
> >>
> >> Use 'mdadm --add' to add a new disk to this array, the new disk will
> >> become sda's replacement instead of add to removed position, which is
> >> confusing for users. Meanwhile, after new disk recovery success, sda
> >> will be set to Faulty.
> >>
> >> Prioritize adding disk to 'removed' mirror is a better choice. In the
> >> above scenario, the behavior is the same as before, except sda will not
> >> be deleted. Before other disks are added, continued use sda is more
> >> reliable.
> >>
> >
> > I think this change make sense, however, it's better to do this for all
> > personality instead of just for raid10.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Kuai
>
> raid5 is currently like this. If others are OK with this changes to
> raid10, I will modify raid1 later.
This change looks reasonable. Could you please add a mdadm test
to cover this case?
Applied to md-next.
Thanks,
Song
Powered by blists - more mailing lists