Re: raidframe

[Patrick Welche <prlw1%cam.ac.uk@localhost>]

On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 09:35:32AM -0600, Greg Oster wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 16:13:42 +0100
> Patrick Welche <prlw1%cam.ac.uk@localhost> wrote:
> 
> > One of my raidframe mirror disks had unrecoverable errors. Running
> > seatools fixed them (aside: would you return a 500G SATA disk if it
> > had 64 errors?). The question now is, is the parity really alright?
> > raidctl -p and -P say it is, but should I fail the disk and
> > reconstruct it just to be sure? (There isn't a *really* verify parity
> > option to raidctl is there?)
> 
> 'raidctl -p' and 'raidctl -P' actually do the checking/rebuilding by
> first comparing the blocks on each component, and then updating the
> 'mirror' if they are different.  If 'raidctl -p' or 'raidctl -P' have
> just used the wonderful parity logging bits,

That is indeed what they used...

> then it's entirely
> possible that your parity is still out-of sync on a few of the remapped
> sectors (as those sectors will have been changed without the knowledge
> of the parity mapping stuff).

... so I had better reconstruct just to be sure!

Thank you!

Patrick