On 12/19/2011 8:51 PM, Frank Cusack wrote:
If you don't detach the smaller drive, the pool size won't increase. Even if the remaining smaller drive fails, that doesn't mean you have to detach it. So yes, the pool size might increase, but it won't be "unexpectedly". It will be because you detached all smaller drives. Also, even if a smaller drive is failed, it can still be attached.
If you don't have a controller slot to connect the replacement drive through, then you have to remove the smaller drive, physically. You can, then attach the replacement drive, but will "replace" work then, or must you remove and then add it because it is "the same disk"?
It doesn't make sense for attach to do anything with partition tables, IMHO.
I understand that in some cases, it might be more problematic for attach to "assume" some things about partitioning. I don't know that I have "the answer", but I know, from experience, that there is nothing I hate more than anything, then having to "figure out" how to partition disks on Solaris. It's just too painful to have so many steps with conditions of use.
I *always* order the spare when I order the original drives, to have it on hand, even for my home system. Drive sizes change more frequently than they fail, for me. Sure, when I use the spare I may not be able to order a new spare of the same size, but at least at that time I have time to prepare and am not scrambling.
Most of the time, I have spares ready too. I have returned 4 of one manufactures, and 2 of another, with 2 more disks showing signs of "failure". These are all SATA disks on my home server. At this point, with drive prices so high, it's not "simple" to pick up a couple of more spares to have on hand. For my Root pool, I had only no remaining 250GB disks that I've been using for root. So, I put in one of my 1.5TB spares for the moment, until I decide whether or not to order a new small drive.
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Gregg Wonderly <gregg...@gmail.com <mailto:gregg...@gmail.com>> wrote:

    That's why I'm asking.  I think it should always mirror the partition
    table and allocate exactly the same amount of space so that the pool
    doesn't suddenly change sizes unexpectedly and require a disk size that I
    don't have at hand, to put the mirror back up.

zfs-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to