From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Piergiorgio Sartor Subject: Re: Suggestion for hot-replace Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 11:13:06 +0100 Message-ID: <20121125101306.GA2373@lazy.lzy> References: <50B1BCBD.70306@zytor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <50B1BCBD.70306@zytor.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Linux RAID Mailing List List-Id: linux-raid.ids 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, -- piergiorgio