On 04/27/2010 05:50 PM, Janos Haar wrote:
quoted text
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "MRK" <mrk@shiftmail.org>
> To: "Janos Haar" <janos.haar@netcenter.hu>
> Cc: <linux-raid@vger.kernel.org>
> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 6:53 PM
> Subject: Re: Suggestion needed for fixing RAID6
>
>
>> On 04/26/2010 02:52 PM, Janos Haar wrote:
>>>
>>> Oops, you are right!
>>> It was my mistake.
>>> Sorry, i will try it again, to support 2 drives with dm-cow.
>>> I will try it.
>>
>> Great! post here the results... the dmesg in particular.
>> The dmesg should contain multiple lines like this "raid5:md3: read 
>> error corrected ....."
>> then you know it worked.
>
> I am affraid i am still right about that....
>
> ...
> end_request: I/O error, dev sdh, sector 1667152256
> raid5:md3: read error not correctable (sector 1662188168 on dm-1).
> raid5: Disk failure on dm-1, disabling device.
> raid5: Operation continuing on 10 devices.

I think I can see a problem here:
You had 11 active devices over 12 when you received the read error.
At 11 devices over 12 your array is singly-degraded and this should be 
enough for raid6 to recompute the block from parity and perform the 
rewrite, correcting the read-error, but instead MD declared that it's 
impossible to correct the error, and dropped one more device (going to 
doubly-degraded).

I think this is an MD bug, and I think I know where it is:


--- linux-2.6.33-vanilla/drivers/md/raid5.c     2010-02-24 
19:52:17.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.33/drivers/md/raid5.c     2010-04-27 23:58:31.000000000 +0200
@@ -1526,7 +1526,7 @@ static void raid5_end_read_request(struc

                 clear_bit(R5_UPTODATE, &sh->dev[i].flags);
                 atomic_inc(&rdev->read_errors);
-               if (conf->mddev->degraded)
+               if (conf->mddev->degraded == conf->max_degraded)
                         printk_rl(KERN_WARNING
                                   "raid5:%s: read error not correctable "
                                   "(sector %llu on %s).\n",

------------------------------------------------------
(This is just compile-tested so try at your risk)

I'd like to hear what Neil thinks of this...

The problem here (apart from the erroneous error message) is that if 
execution goes inside that "if" clause, it will eventually reach the 
md_error() statement some 30 lines below there, which will have the 
effect of dropping one further device further worsening the situation 
instead of recovering it, and this is not the correct behaviour in this 
case as far as I understand.
At the current state raid6 behaves like if it was a raid5, effectively 
supporting only one failed disk.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html