Karl Pielorz wrote:
>
>
> --On 08 September 2008 07:30 -0700 Richard Elling
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> This seems like a reasonable process to follow, I would have done
>> much the same.
>
>> [caveat: I've not examined the FreeBSD ZFS port, the following
>> presumes the FreeBSD port is simi
--On 08 September 2008 07:30 -0700 Richard Elling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> This seems like a reasonable process to follow, I would have done
> much the same.
> [caveat: I've not examined the FreeBSD ZFS port, the following
> presumes the FreeBSD port is similar to the Solaris port]
> ZFS d
On Mon, 8 Sep 2008, Miles Nordin wrote:
>
> no, I think ZFS should be fixed.
>
> 1. the procedure you used is how hot spares are used, so anyone who
> says it's wrong for any reason is using hindsight bias.
>
> 2. Being able to pull data off a failing-but-not-fully-gone drive is
> something a g
> "kp" == Karl Pielorz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
kp> Thinking about it - perhaps I should have detached ad4 (the
kp> failing drive) before attaching another device?
no, I think ZFS should be fixed.
1. the procedure you used is how hot spares are used, so anyone who
says it's wro
Karl Pielorz wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I run ZFS (a version 6 pool) under FreeBSD. Whilst I realise this changes a
> *whole heap* of things - I'm more interested in if I did 'anything wrong'
> when I had a recent drive failure...
>
> On of a mirrored pair of drives on the system started failing, badly
Hi All,
I run ZFS (a version 6 pool) under FreeBSD. Whilst I realise this changes a
*whole heap* of things - I'm more interested in if I did 'anything wrong'
when I had a recent drive failure...
On of a mirrored pair of drives on the system started failing, badly
(confirmed by 'hard' read & w
