Eric Schrock wrote: > Hmmm, it means that we correctly noticed that the device had failed, but > for whatever reason the ZFS FMA agent didn't correctly replace the > drive. I am cleaning up the hot spare behavior as we speak so I will > try to reproduce this.
Ok, great. >> Well, as long as I know which device is affected :-> If "zpool status" >> doesn't return it may be difficult to figure out. >> >> Do you know if the SATA controllers in a Thumper can better handle this >> problem? > > I will be starting a variety of experiments in this vein in the near > future. Others may be able to describe their experiences so far. How > exactly did you 'spin down' the drives in question? Is there a > particular failure mode you're interested in? The Andataco cabinet has a button for each disk slot that if you hold down will spin the drive down so you can pull it out. I'm interested in any failure mode that might happen to my server :-> Basically, we're very interested in building a nice ZFS server box that will house a good chunk of our data, be it homes, research or whatever. I just have to know the server is as bulletproof as possible, that's why I'm doing the stress tests. >> Do you have an idea as to when this might be available? > > It will be a while before the complete functionality is finished. I > have begun the work, but there are several distinct phases. First, I > am cleaning up the existing hot spare behavior. Second, I'm adding > proper hotplug support to ZFS so that it detects device removal without > freaking out and correctly resilvers/replaces drives when they are > plugged back in. Finally, I'll be adding a ZFS diagnosis engine to both > analyze ZFS faults as well as consume SMART data to predict disk failure > and proactively offline devices. I would estimate that it will be a few > months before I get all of this into Nevada. Ok, thanks. Jim _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
