Re: Fault tolerance with badblocks

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

 



On 9 May 2017, Reindl Harald said:

> Am 09.05.2017 um 12:28 schrieb Nix:
>> Honestly, scrubs are looking less and less desirable the more I talk
>> about them. Massive worry inducers that don't actually spot problems in
>> any meaningful sense (not even at the level of "there is a problem on
>> this disk", just "there is a problem on this array")
>
> that is your opinion
>
> my expierience over years using md-arrays is that *everytime* smartd triggered a alert mail that a drive will fail soon it happened
> while the scrub was running and so you can replace drives as soon as possible

What, it triggered a SMART warning while a scrub was running which SMART
long self-tests didn't? That's depressing. You'd think SMART would be
watching for errors while it's own tests were running!

(Or were you not running any long self-tests? That's at least as risky
as not scrubbing, IMNSHO.)
--
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