]] Dax Kelson > On Nov 13, 2013 8:03 AM, "Lennart Poettering" <lenn...@poettering.net> > wrote: > > > > I also have the suspicion that the best strategy for handling degraded > > arrays is to timeout and not assemble them but rather put the system in > > a state where the admin has to become active. Auto-assembling degraded > > arrays has the feel of taping over issues. If the admin chooses to > > boot-up with degraded disks then that's ok, but I am pretty sure this is > > something the admin should explicitly decide. > > As an experienced admin, I disagree with this. If I've gone to the effort > to setup a RAID volume obviously I value high availability.
That's not obvious. You might value data integrity. You might value the ability to have file systems larger than a single disk which has some resilence against single- or double disk failures. The problem with just continuing with a degraded RAID is for those who run without monitoring turned on: How is the admin to know that the system's RAID is degraded? (Think simple home server without working outgoing email for mdadm, no monitoring, no desktop style login where you can pop up a notification.) Sadly, this means that us experienced admins have to flip the defaults because we have working email from mdadm and monitoring and alerts and we would rather the volume be available and degraded than not available at all. -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel