Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Tue, 19 Sep 2006 13:07:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.168.28]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id k8JK7laG005828 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2006 13:07:48 -0700 X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1158696428-15743-266-0 X-Barracuda-URL: http://cuda.sgi.com:80/cgi-bin/mark.cgi Received: from limpet.umeoce.maine.edu (limpet.umeoce.maine.edu [130.111.192.115]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 4EC2E456BC7 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2006 13:07:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (cousins@localhost) by limpet.umeoce.maine.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA02570; Tue, 19 Sep 2006 13:52:45 -0400 Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 13:52:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Cousins Reply-To: cousins@umit.maine.edu To: Shailendra Tripathi cc: "xfs@oss.sgi.com" X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: swidth with mdadm and RAID6 Subject: Re: swidth with mdadm and RAID6 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.00 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.00 using per-user scores of TAG_LEVEL=3.5 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=9.0 tests= X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.02, rules version 3.0.21555 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- X-archive-position: 9028 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com X-original-sender: cousins@limpet.umeoce.maine.edu Precedence: bulk X-list: xfs Content-Length: 872 Lines: 33 On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Shailendra Tripathi wrote: > >> Hi Shailendra, > >> > >> I ran the program and it reports: > >> > >> Level 6, disks=11 spare_disks=1 raid_disks=10 > >> > >> which looks good. I don't understand why you got: > >> > >> Level 5, disks=7 spare_disks=3 raid_disks=5 > >> > >> Why would it have 3 spare_disks? > > > Perhaps you are running more recent kernel than mine, and, spare_disks > now reports only actual spares. It did appear little weired that it > reported spare_disks as 3. get_array_info is changed in recent kernels > and that should explain this difference. This is a 2.6.17 kernel. So, with this in mind, is there a change that I should try in libdisk/md.c? Tim had suggested: s/nr_disks/raid_disks/ Would this be sufficient? Or should nr_disks be initialized as raid_disks and then go into the switch clause? Steve