From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Brad Campbell Subject: Re: is "replaceable" in 3.2 considered stable Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 09:42:03 +0800 Message-ID: <5099BC6B.7030500@fnarfbargle.com> References: <20121105162227.7bc5c103@notabene.brown> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20121105162227.7bc5c103@notabene.brown> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: NeilBrown Cc: Mikael Abrahamsson , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On 05/11/12 13:22, NeilBrown wrote: > > Try it. If it works for you, we can be more confident that it is stable :-) > > Seriously I think it is safe to try but I won't promise that nothing will go > wrong. I do promise that if something goes wrong (which is fairly unlikely), > I'll do my best to help you fix it, and think it is extremely unlikely that > the experiment will cause data loss. I have a test system set up at the moment with a RAID10 n,2 across 6 1TB drives + 2 spares. I've run several hot-replace tests using 3.6.2 and found it works as advertised. I also have two drives with hard write errors (excellent for failure testing), and trying to replace a drive with one that contains a write error fails the replace as you would expect. The test machine is on UPS, so I have not done any testing that involves reboots during a re-sync.