From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ankur Bose Subject: Bad block management in raid1 Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 15:36:52 +0530 Message-ID: <5502B6BC.50809@oracle.com> References: <550184D4.8060104@jive.nl> <55019940.4030104@turmel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <55019940.4030104@turmel.org> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org Cc: Suresh Babu Kandukuru List-Id: linux-raid.ids Hi There, Can you conform the below scenario in which blocks are consider to b= e=20 a "bad" block. 1. A read error on a degraded array ( a state of raid when=20 array experiences the failure of one or more disks)for which the data=20 cannot be found from other legs is a "bad" block and gets recorded. 2. When recovering, from source to target leg, for any reason=20 if unable to read from source, the target leg's block gets recorded as=20 =E2=80=9Cbad=E2=80=9D (thought the target block is writable and can be = used in future). 3. Write to a block fails (Though it leads to degraded mode). Are they all implemented and is there any other scenario? When exactly the raid1 decides to make the device "Faulty"? Does that= =20 depends on the number of bad blocks in the list ie: 512? What is the size in the metadata for storing the bad block info. Thanks, Ankur -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html