On Jun 15, 2011, at 2:44 AM, Fred Liu wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Richard Elling [mailto:richard.ell...@gmail.com] >> Sent: 星期三, 六月 15, 2011 14:25 >> To: Fred Liu >> Cc: Jim Klimov; zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org >> Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs global hot spares? >> >> On Jun 14, 2011, at 10:31 PM, Fred Liu wrote: >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Richard Elling [mailto:richard.ell...@gmail.com] >>>> Sent: 星期三, 六月 15, 2011 11:59 >>>> To: Fred Liu >>>> Cc: Jim Klimov; zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org >>>> Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs global hot spares? >>>> >>>> On Jun 14, 2011, at 2:36 PM, Fred Liu wrote: >>>> >>>>> What is the difference between warm spares and hot spares? >>>> >>>> Warm spares are connected and powered. Hot spares are connected, >>>> powered, and automatically brought online to replace a "failed" disk. >>>> The reason I'm leaning towards warm spares is because I see more >>>> replacements than "failed" disks... a bad thing. >>>> -- richard >>>> >>> >>> You mean so-called "failed" disks replaced by hot spares are not >> really >>> physically damaged? Do I misunderstand? >> >> That is not how I would phrase it, let's try: assuming the disk is >> failed because >> you can't access it or it returns bad data is a bad assumption. >> -- richard >> > > Gotcha! But if there is a real failed disk, we have to do manual warm spare > disk replacement. > If the pool's "failmode" is set to "wait", we experienced a NFS service > time-out. It will interrupt > NFS service.
This is only true if the pool is not protected. Please protect your pool with mirroring or raidz*. -- richard _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
