Re: Accepted mdadm 2.6.2-1ubuntu1 (source)

2007-07-15 Thread Krzysztof Lichota
Martin Pitt napisaƂ(a): > This is probably heavily dependent on the requirements you have on > that server: > > - If you absolutely depend on data integrity, it's better to not boot > it and drop you into a rescue shell. > > - If you absolutely depend on uptime and remote accessibility, > bri

Re: Accepted mdadm 2.6.2-1ubuntu1 (source)

2007-07-14 Thread Martin Pitt
hi, Christofer C. Bell [2007-07-13 11:22 -0500]: > I'm not convinced that any action other than "bring up the array > read-write in degraded mode" is necessary. This ensures data and > application availability and allows the administrator to take action > while the system is up and running (one o

Re: Accepted mdadm 2.6.2-1ubuntu1 (source)

2007-07-13 Thread Christofer C. Bell
On 7/13/07, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm inclined to agree. Bringing up a degraded array, and allowing the admin > to recover it in a normal administration scenario, should always be better > than failing the boot. Allowing the array to come up degraded is the default behavio