From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luca Berra Subject: Re: Proactive Drive Replacement Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 15:20:45 +0200 Message-ID: <20081025132045.GA9377@maude.comedia.it> References: <48FD94F9.3060400@dgreaves.com> <20081024055726.GA16857@maude.comedia.it> <490182BD.9070109@dgreaves.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <490182BD.9070109@dgreaves.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 09:09:33AM +0100, David Greaves wrote: >However you seem to ignore the part of the threads that demonstrate my >understanding of the issue when I talk about mirroring from the failing drive >and the need to have md resort to the remaining components/parity in the event >of a failed block precisely to avoid md failing the mirroring process and >leaving you stuck :) It was not 'ignored', in the sense i did not read or understand it: I do agree that hot-sparing of a failing drive should be a native feature of md I was just pointing out what were, imho, errors in your reasoning. L. -- Luca Berra -- bluca@comedia.it Communication Media & Services S.r.l. /"\ \ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN X AGAINST HTML MAIL / \