tech-kern archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: RAIDframe component replacement

        hello.  I would suggest marking sd0a as failed, as you indicate in
your second scenario, then, after replacing the failed sd0 with the new
sd0,  doing:
raidctl -R /dev/sd0a raid0
or what ever the magic raid number is in your setup.
That should get you back to what you want with the least number of steps.
I've done this innumerable times with NetBSD since at least NetBSD-2.x,
and, assuming all of your equipment is good, it works flawlessly.
        Remember to do an installboot on the new disk after the reconstruction
is done to reinstall the boot block.

Good luck.

On Apr 7,  5:27pm, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Edgar_Fu=DF?= wrote:
} Subject: RAIDframe component replacement
} I would need some advice on RAIDframe failing component replacement (on =
} 4.0.1/amd64).
} I have a RAID1 consisting of sd0a and sd1a. Now, sd0 sometimes fails =
} with "hardware error", but reconstruction onto it is OK. Of course, I =
} want to replace the disc. Luckily, I have a spare drive and everything =
} is hotpluggable SCA and I have unused slots.
} It seem I have two options (given the spare disc I have has already been =
} fdisk'ed and disklabel'ed):
} 1. Leave the two current discs in, insert the replacement disc, scscictl =
} scan it (becoming sd2) and then add it as a hot spare via raidctl -a =
} sd2a, Then, raidctl -F sd0a which should begin a reconstruction on sd2a.
} 2. Do a raidctl -f sd0a (if sd0 hasn't been marked as failed already), =
} then scsictl detach it and pull it out. Then, substitute it with the =
} replacement disc, scsictl scan (does it become sd0 then?) and raidctl -a =
} sd0a. Probably I have to raidctl -F component0 again in order for the =
} reconstruction to begin.
} What's the preferred method?
} I would like to end up with a setup that is bootable again (given I =
} installboot'ed on the spare). Also, the configuration preferably should =
} look unchanged (i.e. sd0a/sd1a and not component0/sd1a/sd2a).
} Additionally, I would prefer the procedure that is safer against the =
} remaining component (sd1) failing in the middle of it.
} Thanks for your help.=
>-- End of excerpt from =?iso-8859-1?Q?Edgar_Fu=DF?=

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index