> So you have drives A, B, and C. A and B were live. Let's say B is the > one that failed. You reconstructed onto C and have been running with A > and C. Yes.
> Now you have a new B (which in this case is the same hardware with new > firmware) and want to put it back into service. I'm not sure whether > you want to put it into service in place of A or in place of C. I'm > going to assume C. Yes. > So, you'd pull C, replace it with B No. I don't pull C. I re-add B (I have lots of empty slots). > and initiate a reconstruct No, a copyback (raidctl -B). > which for RAID 1 means copying from A to B. I don't know. I would expect it to copy from C to B. > > 1. The replaced component fails > > Is this B? Or C? Because it sounds to me as though C would be out of > service at this point. I mean B. > > 2. The spare fails > > Which is "the spare"? C. > Are you running with a hot spare? Yes. I added C as a hot spare when B failed and started a reconstruction. > I think a hot spare failing means nothing until/unless RAIDframe > tries to fall back on it. Yes. > > 3. The other, non-replaced component fails? > > That would be A? Yes. > Based on the assumption that RAIDframe RAID 1 cannot handle more than > two drives (always true as far as I know, and the 9.0 raidctl(8) manpage > says it's still true as of 9.0) The RAID-1 I'm speaking of does only have to components, but I did operate a RAIDframe RAID-1 on three components with 5.1 or something.
