On Sunday 25 November 2012 16:31:45 Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote: > > Hello, personally I would vote for an option to rotate spares into and > > array > > like Peter suggests, keeping a drive idle doesn't guarrantee that it's > > actually operational. > > Only problem with this, is if you do it frequently, it'll degrade > performance. > > Btw, is there a way to replace a drive without failing one? In RAID-5, a > common issue is to have a failed drive and then find bad sectors on > another. In this setting (and possibly others), it'd be good to have md > replace the drive while still active (like what can be done in ZFS). Well both options serve a purpose, but say you rotate a spare into the array that then fails on spinup, then you would have a faulted array as your implementation plan states that a drive cannot be "older" than x hours, then you would have and endless loop where as the other option would suggest to zero the former drive and reinstate it. /Tommy -- 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
