> -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Elling [mailto:richard.ell...@gmail.com] > Sent: 星期三, 六月 15, 2011 14:25 > To: Fred Liu > Cc: Jim Klimov; zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs global hot spares? > > On Jun 14, 2011, at 10:31 PM, Fred Liu wrote: > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Richard Elling [mailto:richard.ell...@gmail.com] > >> Sent: 星期三, 六月 15, 2011 11:59 > >> To: Fred Liu > >> Cc: Jim Klimov; zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > >> Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs global hot spares? > >> > >> On Jun 14, 2011, at 2:36 PM, Fred Liu wrote: > >> > >>> What is the difference between warm spares and hot spares? > >> > >> Warm spares are connected and powered. Hot spares are connected, > >> powered, and automatically brought online to replace a "failed" disk. > >> The reason I'm leaning towards warm spares is because I see more > >> replacements than "failed" disks... a bad thing. > >> -- richard > >> > > > > You mean so-called "failed" disks replaced by hot spares are not > really > > physically damaged? Do I misunderstand? > > That is not how I would phrase it, let's try: assuming the disk is > failed because > you can't access it or it returns bad data is a bad assumption. > -- richard >
Gotcha! But if there is a real failed disk, we have to do manual warm spare disk replacement. If the pool's "failmode" is set to "wait", we experienced a NFS service time-out. It will interrupt NFS service. Thanks. Fred _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
