From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nix Subject: Re: Fault tolerance with badblocks Date: Tue, 09 May 2017 12:15:16 +0100 Message-ID: <87fuge5liz.fsf@esperi.org.uk> References: <03294ec0-2df0-8c1c-dd98-2e9e5efb6f4f@hale.ee> <590B3039.3060000@youngman.org.uk> <84184eb3-52c4-e7ad-cd5b-5021b5cf47ee@hale.ee> <590DC905.60207@youngman.org.uk> <87h90v8kt3.fsf@esperi.org.uk> <1533bba8-41cb-2c50-b28a-52786e463072@turmel.org> <87vapb6s9h.fsf@esperi.org.uk> <871sry728q.fsf@esperi.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: In-Reply-To: (Reindl Harald's message of "Tue, 9 May 2017 12:50:53 +0200") Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Reindl Harald Cc: Phil Turmel , Wols Lists , "Ravi (Tom) Hale" , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On 9 May 2017, Reindl Harald said: > Am 09.05.2017 um 12:28 schrieb Nix: >> Honestly, scrubs are looking less and less desirable the more I talk >> about them. Massive worry inducers that don't actually spot problems in >> any meaningful sense (not even at the level of "there is a problem on >> this disk", just "there is a problem on this array") > > that is your opinion > > my expierience over years using md-arrays is that *everytime* smartd triggered a alert mail that a drive will fail soon it happened > while the scrub was running and so you can replace drives as soon as possible What, it triggered a SMART warning while a scrub was running which SMART long self-tests didn't? That's depressing. You'd think SMART would be watching for errors while it's own tests were running! (Or were you not running any long self-tests? That's at least as risky as not scrubbing, IMNSHO.)