also sprach Hal Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.08.21.0003 +0200]:
>Any suggestions or warnings from others so I can make sure this doens't
>happen again are appreciated. Remember, the two drives I've already
>removed that mdadm had said were bad have tested out as fine. I suspect
>
On Monday 20 August 2007, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Hal Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.08.20.2114 +0200]:
> > It did on the first failure. Then another failed and I turned the
> > machine off. When I got 2 more drives, I put them in and it
> > rebuilt the array using 3 of the drives
also sprach Hal Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.08.20.2114 +0200]:
> It did on the first failure. Then another failed and I turned the
> machine off. When I got 2 more drives, I put them in and it rebuilt
> the array using 3 of the drives with one as a spare. Then when it
> failed this time
On Monday 20 August 2007, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Hal Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.08.20.2022
+0200]:
> > In this case, I had 4 drives, so if one failed, then the spare
> > should have been added but that hadn't happened.
>
> I thought your original email said it did resync the s
also sprach Hal Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.08.20.2022 +0200]:
> In this case, I had 4 drives, so if one failed, then the spare should
> have been added but that hadn't happened.
I thought your original email said it did resync the spare?
> I've also tested the two "failed" drives and they
On Monday 20 August 2007, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Mike Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.08.20.1627
+0200]:
> > > 3) RAID 5 is not resilient against multiple failures. We now use
> > > RAID 1. RAID 1 is also faster, although it sometimes requires
> > > more drives. In extreme cases we u
also sprach Mike Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.08.20.1627 +0200]:
> > 3) RAID 5 is not resilient against multiple failures. We now use RAID 1.
> > RAID 1 is also faster, although it sometimes requires more drives.
> > In extreme cases we use RAID 1 with three or more drives.
>
> On Monday
Also sprach Mike Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.08.18.1537 +0200]:
> 3) RAID 5 is not resilient against multiple failures. We now use RAID 1.
> RAID 1 is also faster, although it sometimes requires more drives.
> In extreme cases we use RAID 1 with three or more drives.
On Monday 20 August
also sprach Hal Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.08.18.1051 +0200]:
> a 2nd drive failed. I shut it down, got some new drives (bigger to be
> sure they weren't too small, allowing for differences in drive sizes
> reported by drive makers), replaced the bad drives, and rebuilt the
> spare with
On Saturday 18 August 2007 01:51, Hal Vaughan wrote:
> I have a RAID5 on 3 drives with a spare. One drive failed and it
> rebuilt itself using the spare, then, before I could replace the spare,
> a 2nd drive failed. I shut it down, got some new drives (bigger to be
> sure they weren't too small,
I have a RAID5 on 3 drives with a spare. One drive failed and it
rebuilt itself using the spare, then, before I could replace the spare,
a 2nd drive failed. I shut it down, got some new drives (bigger to be
sure they weren't too small, allowing for differences in drive sizes
reported by drive
11 matches
Mail list logo
