Re: Split-Brain Protection for MD arrays

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

thanks for reviewing.

> I would suggest one thing:
> Use a fixed increment for "metadata version" number.
Yes, that is what's happening in MD. The doc was confusing about the
"timestamp" part.

> Admitedly, fixed increment exposes user to problems if he decides to
> independently run two halves of a split brain, start making their data
> diverge, reach a point (controlable) where version number is at some
> convenient value and then let the array assemble itself and burst in fire.
> Though, user has to jump through hoops to reach this.

Yes, so for that case I was thinking that once the user decides to
ignore the split-brain warning and still go ahead with the assemble,
then drives that are not accessible at that point will not be used
from now on ("external entity" should take care about that). The doc
mentions that as well.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at

[ATA RAID]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Managing RAID on Linux]     [Linux IDE]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux Hams]     [Device-Mapper]     [Kernel]     [Linux Books]     [Linux Admin]     [Linux Net]     [GFS]     [RPM]     [git]     [Photos]     [Yosemite Photos]     [Yosemite News]     [AMD 64]     [Linux Networking]

Add to Google Powered by Linux