Re: Strange behaviour on "toy array"

[Patrik Jonsson <patrik@ucolick.org>]

Ruth Ivimey-Cook wrote:

>
>Yes, I believe this interpretation is correct. Moreover, I've seen this happen
>"for real": when two drives died on my raid5 array while I was playing, I
>started to see some I/O errors, but only for things that hadn't just been
>accessed: recently accessed things were returned fine. As time went by, even
>those disappeared.
>
>I must admit, it's rather disconcerting, but it is a logical result of having a
>block cache.
>  
>
This makes sense, however, I would have expected /proc/mdstat or 
something telling me the array is DEAD. It seems "clean, degraded" is 
not a proper description of a raid5 without any working drives... Or 
would this not happen until I tried to write to it (which I haven't 
gotten to yet)?

I must admit I don't remember seeing in the FAQ or anywhere what is 
supposed to happen when you lose more than one drive. I sort of expected 
to have the entire array go offline, but it seems it just limps along 
like a normal faulty drive would do?

/Patrik