2012-05-26 1:07, Richard Elling wrote:
On May 25, 2012, at 1:53 PM, zfs user wrote:
The man page seems to not mention the critical part of the FMA msg
that OP is worried about.
OP said that his motivation for clearing the errors and fearing the
degraded state was because he feared this:

>> AUTO-RESPONSE: The device has been marked as degraded. An attempt
>> will be made to activate a hot spare if available.

he doesn't want his dd'd new device kicked out of the vdev and
replaced by a hot spare (if avaialable) due to the number of errors
and the scarlet letter of "degraded" at the device level - I don't
think he cares about the pool level degraded status since it doesn't
"do" anything.

By the time you could read such a message, the hot spare would have already
kicked in. Obviously, this was not the OP's issue.
-- richard

Kind of, it was - the motivation for feeling insecure and
ultimately for clearing the CKSUM errors every minute (that
there is a nonzero error count), at least - the script you
said should never be used in "normal" practice, and I agree
to that conclusion. (Manual) DDing is not the normal practice
sanely covered by the degradation/hotsparing mechanism.

As I wrote, the first time I saw the message, the pool did not
have an assigned hotspare, but it got marked degraded. Just in
case, I came up with that "cksum-mismatch-cleansing" script and
restarted the scrub, since I knew the errors on-disk were due
to an unfinished "proper" resilver onto it. I was not convinced
whether the new disk still fully operates in the pool when it
is marked as degraded, and I did not want the scrub to continue
just to find out whether the disk won't be actively used and

To say that in other words, I know that sometimes docs can lag
behind or hop ahead of implemented features, and the latter can
also be buggy or incomplete. While the theory (FMA and manpage
snippets) said the disk should continue being used by the array
despite the DEGRADED mark, I did not have an intention of staging
an experiment here to find out whether it actually would, in that
aged version of the software.

//the OP ;)
zfs-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to