>From what I remember the problem with the hardware RAID controller is that the >long delay before the drive responds causes the drive to be dropped from the >RAID and then if you get another error on a different drive while trying to >repair the RAID then that disk is also marked failed and your whole filesystem >is gone even though most of the data is still readable on the disks; odds are >you could have recovered 100% of the data using what is still readable on the >complete set of drives, since the bad sectors on the two failed drives >probably wouldn't be in the same place. The end result is worse than not using >RAID because you lose everything rather than just the files with bad sectors >(though if you're using mirroring rather than parity then you could presumably >recover most of the data eventually).
Certainly if the disk was taking that long to respond I'd be replacing it ASAP, but ASAP may not be fast enough if a second drive has bad sectors too. And I have seen a consumer SATA drive repeatedly lock up a system for a minute doing retries when there was no indication at all beforehand that the drive had problems. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
