Hi, On Wed, 17.06.2009 at 15:55:00 +0200, Raimo Niskanen <raimo+open...@erix.ericsson.se> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 03:05:47PM +0200, Toni Mueller wrote: > > I'm not sure that I understand you correctly, and don't want to make a > > statement about the merit of having raidctl running in the background > > while already operating again, but what about having > > > > raidctl -P all & > > > > in /etc/rc? > > IIRC that works just fine if you are willing to take the > risk of getting a broken raid in the event of a crash > / power outage during the backgrounded parity re-write.
I'm not quite sure about the implications. After having a discussion with a Linux guy, I think I need further insight about how RAIDFRAME works. In this message http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=118624313311571&w=2 , Greg Oster suggests that in a RAID1, one disk is always up-to-date, like in a non-RAID system, and the other is being written to in the background. If that were the case (confirmation or corrections are highly appreciated!), then the risk is only as high as losing the master disk while rebuilding parity. Otherwise, nothing would prevent the system from running correctly, albeit much slower, while parity is being rebuilt. TIA! -- Kind regards, --Toni++
