Re: is "replaceable" in 3.2 considered stable

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

 



On 11/07/12 02:42, Brad Campbell wrote:
On 05/11/12 13:22, NeilBrown wrote:

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.

Thanks for your testing Brad

we still need someone to test the other case, a more common scenario I'd say: the disk to be replaced fails during hot-replace

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

And also this one...
Best simulation would be unpulling the plug so that disks do not flush
if you have still time for us, of course :-)

Thank you
--
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