berk walker wrote:
dean gaudet wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007, Robin Bowes wrote:
I'm running RAID6 instead of RAID5+1 - I've had a couple of instances
where a drive has failed in a RAID5+1 array and a second has failed
during the rebuild after the hot-spare had kicked in.
if the failures were read errors without losing the entire disk (the
typical case) then new kernels are much better -- on read error md
will reconstruct the sectors from the other disks and attempt to
write it back.
you can also run monthly "checks"...
echo check >/sys/block/mdX/md/sync_action
it'll read the entire array (parity included) and correct read errors
as they're discovered.
-dean
-
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
Could I get a pointer as to how I can do this "check" in my FC5 [BLAG]
system? I can find no appropriate "check", nor "md" available to me.
It would be a "good thing" if I were able to find potentially weak
spots, rewrite them to good, and know that it might be time for a new
drive.
Grab a recent mdadm source, it's a part of that.
All of my arrays have drives of approx the same mfg date, so the
possibility of more than one showing bad at the same time can not be
ignored.
Never can, but it is highly unlikely, given the MTBF of modern drives.
And when you consider total failures as opposed to bad sectors it gets
even smaller. There is no perfect way to avoid ever losing data, just
ways to reduce the chance to balance the cost of data loss vs. hardware.
Current Linux will rewrite bad sectors, whole drive failures are an
argument for spares.
--
bill davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
-
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
