Today I had a drive fail in a customers server.
It was part of a RAID6 which seems to have rebuilt onto a spare drive now.
Right now it looks like:
# mdadm -D /dev/md3
/dev/md3:
Version : 00.90.03
Creation Time : Thu Dec 20 17:47:07 2007
Raid Level : raid6
Array Size : 4391334912 (4187.90 GiB 4496.73 GB)
Used Dev Size : 731889152 (697.98 GiB 749.45 GB)
Raid Devices : 8
Total Devices : 9
Preferred Minor : 3
Persistence : Superblock is persistent
Update Time : Tue Apr 12 10:27:45 2011
State : clean
Active Devices : 8
Working Devices : 8
Failed Devices : 1
Spare Devices : 0
Chunk Size : 64K
UUID : e848b637:ca2bde73:9f92f3cc:128cdbad
Events : 0.47127534
Number Major Minor RaidDevice State
0 8 33 0 active sync /dev/sdc1
1 8 177 1 active sync /dev/sdl1
2 8 65 2 active sync /dev/sde1
3 8 81 3 active sync /dev/sdf1
4 8 97 4 active sync /dev/sdg1
5 8 113 5 active sync /dev/sdh1
6 8 129 6 active sync /dev/sdi1
7 8 145 7 active sync /dev/sdj1
8 8 161 - faulty spare /dev/sdk1
My question (just to be sure):
Do I understand it correctly that the system has substituted the failed
/dev/sdk1 by a former spare drive (dunno the device name now) and that I
now I have a valid RAID6-device with 8 drives in it?
So out of the 8 drives there could fail another 2 now without losing
data ...
correct?
I have to tell the customer what to do and the grade of redundancy
available also relates to how urgent it is to get a new drive into the
system.
I assume I would remove /dev/sdk1 from md3, swap the drive, fdisk it and
re-add sdk1 to md3 (it is failed already now, so the fail-step isn't
necessary anymore). It would the be the new spare drive ... ?
Thanks for refreshing my RAID-knowledge ;-)
Stefan
--
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
