From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Robin Hill Subject: Re: raid failure question Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 20:53:32 +0000 Message-ID: <20100111205332.GA24486@cthulhu.home.robinhill.me.uk> References: <1263232840.8962.193.camel@kije> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="BXVAT5kNtrzKuDFl" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1263232840.8962.193.camel@kije> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids --BXVAT5kNtrzKuDFl Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 11:00:40AM -0700, Tim Bock wrote: > Hello, >=20 > Excluding the obvious multi-disk or bus failures, can anyone describe > what type of disk failure a raid cannot detect/recover from? >=20 > I have had two disk failures over the last three months, and in spite of > having a hot spare, manual intervention was required each time to make > the raid usable again. I'm just not sure if I'm not setting something > up right, or if there is some other issue. >=20 > Thanks for any comments or suggestions. >=20 Any failure where the disk doesn't actually return an error (within a reasonable time). For example, consumer grade disks often have very long retry times - this can mean the array in unusable for a long time until the disk eventually fails the read. If the disk actually returns an error then, AFAIK, the RAID array should always be able to recover from it. Cheers, Robin --=20 ___ =20 ( ' } | Robin Hill | / / ) | Little Jim says .... | // !! | "He fallen in de water !!" | --BXVAT5kNtrzKuDFl Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAktLj8wACgkQShxCyD40xBI2nACgow3izNiczvDlwHi8ZTcU8Z8z PngAniUgcTDqq84pIMkJNGSQTdNY5Akh =Oe7R -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --BXVAT5kNtrzKuDFl--