From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gandalf Corvotempesta Subject: Re: Disk Monitoring Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 14:35:18 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20170628131917.BF1911235B6@gemini.denx.de> <2113365.0QvyMCaQ9I@matkor-lenovo> <59550FCB.4090508@youngman.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <59550FCB.4090508@youngman.org.uk> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Wols Lists Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids 2017-06-29 16:33 GMT+02:00 Wols Lists : > In other words, a patrol check looks for a failing disk. A consistency > check looks for corrupt data. (A consistency check does a patrol check > as a side effect, but you might not want to do just that, as it is > computationally much more expensive. You might want to do a patrol check > every day, and a consistency check of a weekend.) Ok, so, if resources are not a problem, someone could only run a consistency check and totally skip the patrol check. Right ? What about md reliability? There are many detractors out there. https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99171 One of the most common complaint is the absence of write-back cache, and if you force a "writeback" you'll risk data loss in case of unclean shutdown (power failure and so on)