On 14 November 2016 at 17:58, Wols Lists <antlists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 14/11/16 15:52, Bruce Merry wrote: >> On 13 November 2016 at 23:06, Wols Lists <antlists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> > Sounds like that drive could need replacing. I'd get a new drive and do >>> > that as soon as possible - use the --replace option of mdadm - don't >>> > fail the old drive and add the new. >> Would you mind explaining why I should use --replace instead of taking >> out the suspect drive? I guess I lose redundancy for any writes that >> occur while the rebuild is happening, but I'd plan to do this with the >> filesystem unmounted so there wouldn't be any writes. > > Because a replace will copy from the old drive to the new, recovering > any failures from the rest of the array. A fail-and-add will have to > rebuild the entire new array from what's left of the old, stressing the > old array much more. Okay, I can see how for RAID5 that might be a bad thing. In my case however, it sounds like --replace will copy everything from the failing drive, whereas I'd rather it copied everything from the good drive. Same stress on the array, less chance of copying dodgy data. Bruce -- Dr Bruce Merry bmerry <@> gmail <.> com http://www.brucemerry.org.za/ http://blog.brucemerry.org.za/ -- 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
