From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tommy Apel Hansen Subject: Re: Suggestion for hot-replace Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 16:36:34 +0100 Message-ID: <4164037.TSORKSTxib@workstation-home> References: <10107277.2.1353857505404.JavaMail.root@zimbra> Reply-To: Tommy Apel Hansen Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <10107277.2.1353857505404.JavaMail.root@zimbra> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk Cc: Linux RAID Mailing List List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Sunday 25 November 2012 16:31:45 Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote: > > 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. > > Only problem with this, is if you do it frequently, it'll degrade > performance. > > Btw, is there a way to replace a drive without failing one? In RAID-5, a > common issue is to have a failed drive and then find bad sectors on > another. In this setting (and possibly others), it'd be good to have md > replace the drive while still active (like what can be done in ZFS). Well both options serve a purpose, but say you rotate a spare into the array that then fails on spinup, then you would have a faulted array as your implementation plan states that a drive cannot be "older" than x hours, then you would have and endless loop where as the other option would suggest to zero the former drive and reinstate it. /Tommy