Re: Suggestion for hot-replace

[Tommy Apel Hansen <tommyapeldk@gmail.com>]

On Sunday 25 November 2012 11:13:06 Piergiorgio Sartor wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 10:37:49PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > I was looking at the hot-replace (want_replacement) feature, and I
> > had a thought: it would be nice to have this in a form which
> > *didn't* fail the incumbent drive after the operation is over, and
> > instead turned it into a spare.  This would make it much easier and
> > safer to periodically rotate and test any hot spares in the system.
> > The main problem with hot spares is that you don't actually know if
> > they work properly until there is a failover...
> 
> I go for this one.
> 
> Actually, this was also my original thinking for
> the "proactive replacement".
> 
> The only thing that, in addition, should be done,
> is to keep the spare in sleep mode until needed
> (either for hot replacement or for real replacement).
> 
> bye,

Hello, personally I would vote for an option to rotate spares into and array 
like Peter suggests, keeping a drive idle doesn't guarrantee that it's 
actually operational.

/Tommy