Re: is "replaceable" in 3.2 considered stable

[Brad Campbell <lists2009@fnarfbargle.com>]

On 05/11/12 13:22, NeilBrown wrote:

>
> Try it.  If it works for you, we can be more confident that it is stable :-)
>
> Seriously I think it is safe to try but I won't promise that nothing will go
> wrong.  I do promise that if something goes wrong (which is fairly unlikely),
> I'll do my best to help you fix it, and think it is extremely unlikely that
> the experiment will cause data loss.

I have a test system set up at the moment with a RAID10 n,2 across 6 1TB 
drives + 2 spares.

I've run several hot-replace tests using 3.6.2 and found it works as 
advertised.

I also have two drives with hard write errors (excellent for failure 
testing), and trying to replace a drive with one that contains a write 
error fails the replace as you would expect.

The test machine is on UPS, so I have not done any testing that involves 
reboots during a re-sync.