Hi All,
I run ZFS (a version 6 pool) under FreeBSD. Whilst I realise this changes a
*whole heap* of things - I'm more interested in if I did 'anything wrong'
when I had a recent drive failure...
On of a mirrored pair of drives on the system started failing, badly
(confirmed by 'hard' read
Karl Pielorz wrote:
Hi All,
I run ZFS (a version 6 pool) under FreeBSD. Whilst I realise this changes a
*whole heap* of things - I'm more interested in if I did 'anything wrong'
when I had a recent drive failure...
On of a mirrored pair of drives on the system started failing, badly
kp == Karl Pielorz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
kp Thinking about it - perhaps I should have detached ad4 (the
kp failing drive) before attaching another device?
no, I think ZFS should be fixed.
1. the procedure you used is how hot spares are used, so anyone who
says it's wrong for any
On Mon, 8 Sep 2008, Miles Nordin wrote:
no, I think ZFS should be fixed.
1. the procedure you used is how hot spares are used, so anyone who
says it's wrong for any reason is using hindsight bias.
2. Being able to pull data off a failing-but-not-fully-gone drive is
something a good
--On 08 September 2008 07:30 -0700 Richard Elling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This seems like a reasonable process to follow, I would have done
much the same.
[caveat: I've not examined the FreeBSD ZFS port, the following
presumes the FreeBSD port is similar to the Solaris port]
ZFS does
Karl Pielorz wrote:
--On 08 September 2008 07:30 -0700 Richard Elling
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This seems like a reasonable process to follow, I would have done
much the same.
[caveat: I've not examined the FreeBSD ZFS port, the following
presumes the FreeBSD port is similar to the
