On 17 October 2012 04:06, Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Oct 16, 2012, at 4:57 PM, Mathias Burén wrote: > >> I started a reshape from 64K chunk size to 512K > > I agree with Stan, not a good idea, and also a waste of time. Do you have check scrubs and extended offline smart tests scheduled for these drives periodically? > Weekly scrubs and weekly offline self-tests. SMART always looked good, until 1 drive died completely, the other has 5 uncorrectable sectors. LCC is under 250K. WD20EARS There are basically no files under 8GB on the array so therefore I thought the new chunk size made sense. >> >> I guess my question is if it's possible for me to remove the drive, or >> would I mess the array up? I am not going to anything until the >> reshape finishes though. > > I think you should put in a replacement drive for sda (#6) and get it rebuilding, as sde seems rather tenuous, before you decide to remove sde. > > You should find out why it's slow 'smartctl -A /dev/sde' might reveal this now, which you can issue even while the reshape is occurring - the command just polls for existing smart attribute values for the drive. If it's the same model disk, connected the same way, as all the other drives, I'd get rid of it. It's slow because it's broken (see above). Any idea why it says rebuilding, when it's not? Is it going to attempt a rebuild after the reshape? > > > Chris Murphy-- > 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 Regards, Mathias -- 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
