Agreed....was just indicating that you could only do 2 at a time but that does leave you exposed. In reality, with raid 6 I would not replace anything until it failed, but would certainly not wait once the failure it notified.
Kenneth A. Bloom CEO Avenir Technologies Inc /d/b/a Visara International 203-984-2235 bl...@visara.com www.visara.com > On Jul 7, 2020, at 7:08 PM, Grant Taylor > <0000023065957af1-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > On 7/7/20 4:40 PM, Ken Bloom wrote: >> Side note, if you want to be proactive And replace drives preventatively, >> remember that for raid 5 you can only do one drive at a time, raid 6 2 >> drives, > > I would *STRONGLY* *DISCOURAGE* replacing two drives in a RAID 6 at the same > time. Doing so renders the array subject to a single drive failure causing > total loss. > > I *strongly* *suggest* only replacing one drive at a time in any given array. > Period. End of story. > > After all, if it's proactive, why do you /need/ to do it faster than one > drive at a time? > >> but you need to have insertable Hot spares Or you lose data and you can’t >> do the next set of drives until the new ones are rebuilt....bottom line, >> it’s not efficient to do this. > > I would suggest that you not use your (cold|hot) spares pool for this > proactive drive replacement. Instead, purchase the new drive(s) when you are > ready to do the swap. > > > > -- > Grant. . . . > unix || die > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
