On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 18:33:36 -0400 Bill Davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx> wrote: > NeilBrown wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 14:54:30 -0400 Bill Davidsen<davidsen@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> I have a failing drive, and partitions are in multiple arrays. I'm > >> looking for the least painful and most reliable way to replace it. It's > >> internal, I have a twin in an external box, and can create all the parts > >> now and then swap the drive physically. The layout is complex, here's > >> what blkdevtra tells me about this device, the full trace is attached. > >> > >> Block device sdd, logical device 8:48 > >> Model Family: Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 > >> Device Model: ST3750640AS > >> Serial Number: 5QD330ZW > >> Device size 732.575 GB > >> sdd1 0.201 GB > >> sdd2 3.912 GB > >> sdd3 24.419 GB > >> sdd4 0.000 GB > >> sdd5 48.838 GB [md123] /mnt/workspace > >> sdd6 0.498 GB > >> sdd7 19.543 GB [md125] > >> sdd8 29.303 GB [md126] > >> sdd9 605.859 GB [md127] /exports/common > >> Unpartitioned 0.003 GB > >> > >> I think what I want to do is to partition the new drive, then one array > >> at a time fail and remove the partition on the bad drive, and add a > >> partition on the new good drive. Then repeat for each array until all > >> are complete and on a new drive. Then I should be able to power off, > >> remove the failed drive, put the good drive in the case, and the arrays > >> should reassemble by UUID. > >> > >> Does that sound right? Is there an easier way? > >> > > I would add the new partition before failing the old but that isn't a big > > issues. > > > > If you were running a really new kernel, used 1.x metadata, and were happy to > > try out code that that hasn't had a lot of real-life testing you could (after > > adding the new partition) do > > echo want_replacement> /sys/block/md123/md/dev-sdd5/state > > (for example). > > > > Then it would build the spare before failing the original. > > You need linux 3.3 for this to have any chance of working. > > > > NeilBrown > > I expect to try this in a real world case tomorrow. Am I so lucky that when > rebuilding the failing drive will be copies in a way which uses a recovered > value for the chunk if there's a bad block? And only if there's a bad block, so > that possible evil on the other drives would not be a problem unless they were > at the same chunk? That's the theory, yes. > > As soon as the pack of replacements arrives I'll let you know how well this > worked, if at all. > > Thanks. NeilBrown
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
