From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: joystick Subject: Re: is "replaceable" in 3.2 considered stable Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 10:55:53 +0100 Message-ID: <509A3029.4050402@shiftmail.org> References: <20121105162227.7bc5c103@notabene.brown> <5099BC6B.7030500@fnarfbargle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5099BC6B.7030500@fnarfbargle.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Brad Campbell Cc: NeilBrown , Mikael Abrahamsson , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On 11/07/12 02:42, Brad Campbell wrote: > On 05/11/12 13:22, NeilBrown wrote: > > 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. Thanks for your testing Brad we still need someone to test the other case, a more common scenario I'd say: the disk to be replaced fails during hot-replace > The test machine is on UPS, so I have not done any testing that > involves reboots during a re-sync. And also this one... Best simulation would be unpulling the plug so that disks do not flush if you have still time for us, of course :-) Thank you