On Saturday August 12, tuomas.leikola@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > On 8/9/06, James Peverill <jamespev@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > I'll try the force assemble but it sounds like I'm screwed. It sounds > > like what happened was that two of my drives developed bad sectors in > > different places that weren't found until I accessed certain areas (in > > the case of the first failure) and did the drive rebuild (for the second > > failure). In the future, is there a way to help prevent this? > > This is a common scenario, and I feel could be helped if md could be > told to not drop the disk on first failure, but rather keep it running > in "FAILING" status (as opposed to FAILED), until all data from it has > been evacuated (hot spare). This way, if another disk became "failing" > during rebuild, due to another area of the disk, those blocks could be > rebuilt using the other "failing" disk. (Also, this allows for the > rebuild to mostly be a ddrescue-style copy operation, rather than > parity computation). > > Do you guys feel this is feasible? Neil? Maybe.... I would be a lot happier about it if the block layer told me whether the fail was a Media error or some other sort of error. But something could probably be arranged, and the general idea has been suggested a number of times now, so maybe it really is a good idea :-) I'll put it on my todo list :-) NeilBrown - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
