From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Greaves <david@dgreaves.com>
Subject: Re: Proactive Drive Replacement
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 17:33:33 +0100
Message-ID: <49034A5D.1080306@dgreaves.com>
References: <cccedfc60810201035m53873320tb069f333b707191b@mail.gmail.com> <gdj1c4$8nf$1@ger.gmane.org> <48FD94F9.3060400@dgreaves.com> <20081024055726.GA16857@maude.comedia.it> <490182BD.9070109@dgreaves.com> <20081025132045.GA9377@maude.comedia.it>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20081025132045.GA9377@maude.comedia.it>
Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-raid.ids

Luca Berra wrote:
> I do agree that hot-sparing of a failing drive should be a native
> feature of md

OK - good to hear.

I suppose I'm just trying to raise the image of this issue.

Hot-replacing a drive seems massively more valuable than squeezing a bit of
performance out of an idle spare.

David


-- 
"Don't worry, you'll be fine; I saw it work in a cartoon once..."