On 22/01/16 23:40, James J wrote: > The recommentation of raising the timeout to 120+ is for the opposite > purpose of what you want. It is for the case the sysadmin accepts to > wait a long time because he wants to prevent the kicking of the drive at > the first read-error (normally drives are kicked for a write error). > This might be wanted in order to a) defer the replacement of the drive, > either to perform the replacement at a more opportune time and/or in a > better manner such as a no-degrade replace operation, or b) because he > does not want to replace the drive at all: maybe he believes that the > error might be spurious and will not happen again and the drive is still > of acceptable fitness for the purpose, e.g. in a low-cost file server. Except, aiui, even in your scenario! drives are kicked for a *write* error. What happens (should be) is the kernel times out, the raid handles the read error by trying a rewrite, the drive is still hung on the read error so it doesn't respond to the write request, and the drive gets kicked for a write failure. Cheers, Wol -- 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
