[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: RAIDframe: what if a disc fails during copyback
>> So you have drives A, B, and C. A and B were live. Let's say B is
>> the one that failed. You reconstructed onto C and have been running
>> with A and C.
>> Now you have a new B [...].
>> So, you'd pull C, replace it with B
> No. I don't pull C. I re-add B (I have lots of empty slots).
Well, I meant "pull" in the sense of "remove from the RAID". Whether
or not that means "disconnect from the system" is semi-irrelevant.
>> and initiate a reconstruct
> No, a copyback (raidctl -B).
This is an aspect of RAIDframe I don't know much about. I'm guessing
here, but I would guess that this copies from C to B. In that case,
for failures during the copyback....
If A fails, you have a copy on C, with no redundancy until the copy to
B finishes. I don't know whether it is capable of realizing, after the
copy is done, that it could run on B and C; unlike most RAID levels,
for RAID 1 there's no reason in principle it couldn't - but I suspect
that RAIDframe isn't set up to do so.
If B fails, well, I assume you have to start the copyback over. If
that's not the worst that happens, I would call it a major bug in
If C fails, you have to be running non-redundant, off A alone, because
the copy to B isn't finished. In principle, it could finish copying
from A instead, but I suspect it's not capable of switching
mid-copyback. My guess is you have to reconstruct from A onto B.
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse%rodents-montreal.org@localhost
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
Main Index |
Thread Index |