On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk <r...@karlsbakk.net>wrote:
> Now, I can somewhat see the argument in resilvering more drives in > parallel to save time, if the drives fail at the same time, but how often > do they really do that? Mostly, a drive will fail rather out of sync with > others. This leads me to thinking it would be better to let the pool > resilver the first device dying and then go on with the second, or perhaps > allow for manual override somewhere. > In my experience it's often the resilvering process that triggers the failure of the second drive -- and this is an issue with RAID in general, not just with ZFS. The reason is you're suddenly forcing a read of all the the data on all the remaining drives, and this can uncover latent failures. It's also not that uncommon for a hotspare to turn out to be bad -- after all, it's been spinning just as long as the rest of the disks. This is, incidentally, why I don't run single-parity RAID anymore. That and I like to stay in bed at night. ;) -- David Brodbeck System Administrator, Linguistics University of Washington _______________________________________________ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
