On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Gregg Wonderly <gregg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
Physically, yes. By detach, I meant 'zfs detach', a logical operation.
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"?
I was thinking that you leave the failed drive [logically] attached. So,
you don't 'zfs replace', you just 'zfs attach' your new drive. Yes, this
leaves the mirror in faulted condition. You'd correct that later when you
get a replacement smaller drive.
But, as Fajar noted, just make sure autoexpand is off and you can still do
a 'zfs replace' operation if you like (perhaps so your monitoring shuts up)
and the pool size will not unexpectedly grow.
zfs-discuss mailing list