> >> > So what gives? /dev/sdk3 no longer even exists, so why hasn't it > >> > been failed and removed on /dev /md3 like it has on /dev/md1 and > >> /dev/md2? > >> > >> Is it possible there has been no I/O request for /dev/md3 since > >> /dev/sdk failed? > > > > Well, I thought about that. It's swap space, so I suppose it's > > possible. I would have thought, however, that mdadm would fail a > missing > > member whether there is any I/O or not. > > > > -- > > 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 > > > > I thought so as well. But how will mdadm know is the device is faulty, > unless the device is generating errors? (which usually only happens on > read and/or write) Well, reading here, I believe I have seen posts talking about mdadm waking up sleeping spindles periodically, thereby killing part of the power saving functions of "green" drives. Have those posts been in error? It's been days since the drive "failed". -- 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
