do those
steps, and the raid rebuild is complete, it will be as if you never
replaced the disk at all.
-Brian
On Apr 8, 10:48am, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Edgar_Fu=DF?= wrote:
} Subject: Re: RAIDframe component replacement
} > then, after replacing the failed sd0 with the new sd0
} But with scsictl d
OK, thanks anyone for their most useful answers. Indeed, raidctl -R worked.
I did scsictl stop/detach/scan, despite, strictly speaking, it shouldn't have
been necessary.
Now I have yet to find out why an identical disc was only scanned as 160MB/s,
where the original one was 320. In fact, repeate
Hi,
> Yes, of course. But I haven't hardwired SCSI IDs to sd instances. So I didn't
> know whether the new SCSI Target 0 would become sd0.
It will attach with the same unit number as the one that was detached. The
autoconf code removes the entry when the disk is detached and the new disk
attach
> When I have done this in the past, I have done:
Thanks.
> The new disk gets the same ID as the old one. With SCA, the SCSI ID is
> part of the enclosure, and not set on the disk.
Yes, of course. But I haven't hardwired SCSI IDs to sd instances. So I didn't
know whether the new SCSI Target 0 wo
Hi,
> > But with scsictl detach/scan, I suppose?
> > But with SCA, I'm unsure, whether, after detaching sd0 (and sd1 still
> > there), a newly scanned sd will become sd0 or sd2?
>
> I'm not sure either. My guess would be that it would be sd2, but that
> is just a guess.
When I have done this
>> [...]
> So, do you suggest replacing sd0 without scsictl detach/scan?
Yes.
> While this could work in my special case where the replacement disc
> is the exact same model as the phased-out one and already has a
> disklabel on it, I guess the kernel will get confused otherwise?
In my experienc
>> then, after replacing the failed sd0 with the new sd0
> But with scsictl detach/scan, I suppose?
If that's an excerpt from me: no.
> I've done this several times with non-hotpluggable SCSI hardware
> where I had to power off anyway.
I've done it with non-hot-pluggable hardware _without_ powe
> The hazards in hot-replacing a SCSI disk are electrical, which is
> not an issue if your hardware is designed for hot-plug, and data,
> which is not an issue provided sd0 is completely closed before
> removal and not opened until the replacement is ready.
So, do you suggest replacing sd0 without
On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 10:48:24AM +0200, Edgar Fuß wrote:
> > then, after replacing the failed sd0 with the new sd0
> But with scsictl detach/scan, I suppose?
if the remplaceemnt drive is identical, you don't need to detach/reattach
> I've done this several times with non-hotpluggable SCSI hardw
> then, after replacing the failed sd0 with the new sd0
But with scsictl detach/scan, I suppose?
I've done this several times with non-hotpluggable SCSI hardware where I had to
power off anyway. But with SCA, I'm unsure, whether, after detaching sd0 (and
sd1 still there), a newly scanned sd will
>> None of these can help with that. Whenever as your RAID1 is running
>> single-member, you lose it if the live member fails.
> Yes, of course.
> But it's currently running 2-member. Is there a way to temporarily
> run it three-member and then remove the error-prone component?
Oh, I see what
> None of these can help with that. Whenever as your RAID1 is running
> single-member, you lose it if the live member fails.
Yes, of course.
But it's currently running 2-member. Is there a way to temporarily run it
three-member and then remove the error-prone component?
[Please don't use paragraph-length lines for normal text!]
> I have a RAID1 consisting of sd0a and sd1a. Now, sd0 sometimes fails
> with "hardware error", but reconstruction onto it is OK. Of course,
> I want to replace the disc. Luckily, I have a spare drive and
> everything is hotpluggable SC
Apr 7, 5:27pm, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Edgar_Fu=DF?= wrote:
} Subject: RAIDframe component replacement
} I would need some advice on RAIDframe failing component replacement (on =
} 4.0.1/amd64).
}
} I have a RAID1 consisting of sd0a and sd1a. Now, sd0 sometimes fails =
} with "hardware error", but
I would need some advice on RAIDframe failing component replacement (on
4.0.1/amd64).
I have a RAID1 consisting of sd0a and sd1a. Now, sd0 sometimes fails with
"hardware error", but reconstruction onto it is OK. Of course, I want to
replace the disc. Luckily, I have a spare drive and everything
15 matches
Mail list logo
