Marco Peereboom <slash <at> peereboom.us> writes: > > Maybe I wasn't all too clear? My expectation is not (yet) the automatic > > recovery of the respective half mirror! Sure not! I don't expect > > miracles. What I do expect, though, is a consistent, defined and > > predictable state. > > Your expectations are out of whack with reality.
Marco, I hope not. I think this is why I am using OpenBSD, e.g. Predictability is number one for security, so consistency is a must as well. Though we seem to agree what softraid should be doing from the statements below. I propose to tar all photos and send them to you privately. > > 0. Running sane raid > > 1. One drive goes offline > > What I'd expect, personally, would basically be minimally: > > A. Immediate info about a drive lost. > > That is there. And you haven't shown me any evidence it isn't. You are right. I simply could not read from the man page the most obvious: that the state is displayed without any options (and me stupid tried almost all options!). So I guess it still is a cronjob to scan for 'degraded'? > > B. 2 half mirrors remaining that I can plug into another box, at least > > to access the data on either. > > No, 1 half mirror; the other one is basically lost. You got an IO error > for some reason. There is no telling what didn't get written to it > after the remaining chunk continued on its merry way. Good to know. > > C. No further attempt to use that drive that went offline any longer, at > > least not until a reboot. > > Right, and softraid will detect that it went tits up prior and ignore > it. Good > > D. That means, I won't have I/O errors, but the system running happily > > from the active drive, > > Right. Good > > E. And it means that a reboot will go through smoothly. > > Right. Good. Meaning that we agree, and I'm looking forward to try again! Uwe
