On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 08:14:25PM +0100, Giovanni Tessore wrote:
To use a hot spare if available seems to me a very good idea.
About the metedata version, I was quite disappointed to see that the
default when creating the array is still the 0.9 (correct me if newer
distros behave differently), which does not persist info about the
corrected read errors.
it was changed in mdadm 3.1.1
Into a previous post I suggested to let at least the admins to be conscious
of the sistuation:
I think it's also a mess for the image of the whole linux server community:
try to explain to a customer that his robust raid system, with 6 disks plus
2 hot spares, just died because there were read errors, which were well
kwnown by the system; and that now all his valuable data are lost!!! That
customer may say "What a server...!!!", kill you, then get a win server by
sure!!
Oh, please, stop trolling.
L.
--
Luca Berra -- bluca@xxxxxxxxxx
Communication Media & Services S.r.l.
/"\
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN
X AGAINST HTML MAIL
/ \
--
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
