> Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 13:50:47 -0800 > From: David Brodbeck <bro...@uw.edu> > > 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. ;)
Does ZFS periodically verify hot spares? For that matter, does it verify the RAIDZ disks? Martin _______________________________________________ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
