This way I could get the replacement in and do the resync without actually having to degrade the array first.
<snip>
2) This sort of brings up a subject I'm getting increasingly paranoid about. It seems to me that if disk 1 develops a unrecoverable error at block 500 and disk 4 develops one at 55,000 I'm going to get a double disk failure as soon as one of the bad blocks is read
Here's an alternate description. On first 'unrecoverable' error, the disk is marked as FAILING, which means that a spare is immediately taken into use to replace the failing one. The disk is not kicked, and readable blocks can still be used to rebuild other blocks (from other FAILING disks). The rebuild can be more like a ddrescue type operation, which is probably a lot faster in the case of raid6, and the disk can be automatically kicked after the sync is done. If there is no read access to the FAILING disk, the rebuild will be faster just because seeks are avoided in a busy system. Personally I feel this is a good idea, count my vote in. - Tuomas -- VGER BF report: U 0.505245 - 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
