From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wols Lists Subject: Re: What is the solution for USB HDs Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 15:53:37 +0000 Message-ID: <58501981.1070305@youngman.org.uk> References: <13e51316a11df7b0c9f5ab89392361de@juan-carlos.info> <171542c9-1ab8-0993-733d-fbb95467f512@websitemanagers.com.au> <9481982b-bfda-644e-e160-74b94bbbec0c@turmel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <9481982b-bfda-644e-e160-74b94bbbec0c@turmel.org> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Phil Turmel , Adam Goryachev , juca@juan-carlos.info, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On 12/12/16 03:17, Phil Turmel wrote: > On 12/11/2016 05:14 PM, Adam Goryachev wrote: >> > On 12/12/16 04:14, juca@juan-carlos.info wrote: >> > If you are still having problems after that, then please try to post >> > more details on what happens when the drives vanish (eg, kernel logs, >> > system logs, etc). >> > >> > Also, you might consider an alternative SBC, some have SATA ports >> > already available (RPi are the only SBC's I've used, but there are many >> > other options/variations). > There's also a kernel boot parameter that can cut off all USB > auto-suspend, which I suspect is part of the problem. It has been known > for a long time that USB is not robust enough to be trusted in MD arrays. Okay, I've just parroted it on the wiki, but the wiki does recommend against USB disks, precisely because every mention (very few) I've seen says it's a bad idea - because of suspend. Cheers, Wol