>>>>> "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 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 good storage subsystem should be able to do. I might
not expect it of LVM2 or of crappy raid-on-a-card, but I would
definitely expect it from Netapp/EMC/Hitachi.
3. Also sometimes one is confused about which drive is failing because
of crappy controllers and controller drivers, so by-the-book
recovery procedures shouldn't have to involve ad-hoc detaching.
though my experience with software raid other than ZFS is the
same---the whole job is about having the Fu to know what to unplug
to make the rickety system stable again.
pgpRiJ32sbhT5.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
