Re: is "replaceable" in 3.2 considered stable

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 05/11/12 13:22, NeilBrown wrote:


Try it.  If it works for you, we can be more confident that it is stable :-)

Seriously I think it is safe to try but I won't promise that nothing will go
wrong.  I do promise that if something goes wrong (which is fairly unlikely),
I'll do my best to help you fix it, and think it is extremely unlikely that
the experiment will cause data loss.

I have a test system set up at the moment with a RAID10 n,2 across 6 1TB drives + 2 spares.

I've run several hot-replace tests using 3.6.2 and found it works as advertised.

I also have two drives with hard write errors (excellent for failure testing), and trying to replace a drive with one that contains a write error fails the replace as you would expect.

The test machine is on UPS, so I have not done any testing that involves reboots during a re-sync.

--
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


[Index of Archives]     [Linux RAID Wiki]     [ATA RAID]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Linux Block]     [Linux IDE]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux Hams]     [Device Mapper]     [Device Mapper Cryptographics]     [Kernel]     [Linux Admin]     [Linux Net]     [GFS]     [RPM]     [git]     [Yosemite Forum]


  Powered by Linux