On Mon, 4 Sep 2006, Bill Davidsen wrote:
But I think most of the logic exists, the hardest part would be deciding what
to do. The existing code looks as if it could be hooked to do this far more
easily than writing new. In fact, several suggested recovery schemes involve
stopping the RAID5,
Michael Tokarev wrote:
Tuomas Leikola wrote:
[]
Here's an alternate description. On first 'unrecoverable' error, the
disk is marked as FAILING, which means that a spare is immediately
taken into use to replace the failing one. The disk is not kicked, and
readable blocks can still be used to
This way I could get the replacement in and do the resync without
actually having to degrade the array first.
snip
2) This sort of brings up a subject I'm getting increasingly paranoid
about. It seems to me that if disk 1 develops a unrecoverable error at
block 500 and disk 4 develops one at
Tuomas Leikola wrote:
[]
Here's an alternate description. On first 'unrecoverable' error, the
disk is marked as FAILING, which means that a spare is immediately
taken into use to replace the failing one. The disk is not kicked, and
readable blocks can still be used to rebuild other blocks
Hi Everybody,
I had this major recovery last week after a hardware failure monkeyed
things up pretty badly. About half way though I had a couple of ideas
and I thought I'd suggest/ask them.
1) Drive Linking: So let's say I have a 6 disk RAID5 array and I have
reason to believe one of the drives
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, Neil Bortnak wrote:
Hi Everybody,
I had this major recovery last week after a hardware failure monkeyed
things up pretty badly. About half way though I had a couple of ideas
and I thought I'd suggest/ask them.
1) Drive Linking: So let's say I have a 6 disk RAID5
