Re: RAIDframe hot spares

[Greg Oster <oster%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 16:49:12 +0100
Edgar Fuß <ef%math.uni-bonn.de@localhost> wrote:

> I have another question on RAIDframe, this time on hot spares (which
> I never used before).
> I was at A and B "optimal" and C "spare", and B failed. I would have
> expected RAIDframe to immediately start a reconstruction on C, but
> that didn't happen; I had to raidctl -F B first.
> 
> In case it matters, that setup was reached through the following
> events: A and B "optimal"
> B failed
> A "optimal", B "failed"
> raidctl -a C
> A "optimal", B "failed", C "spare"
> raidctl -F B
> A "optimal", B "spared", C "used_spare"
> raidctl -B
> A and B "optimal", C "spare"
> 
> Isn't the point of a *hot* spare to immediately reconstruct on it if
> neccessary?

The original code didn't support immediate reconstruction, and no-one
has bothered to add it since...  At this point you can approximate the
immediate reconstruction with a cron job that checks the status of the
RAID set, and then executes the appropriate rebuild.

Later...

Greg Oster