The wording does seem a bit confusing, and more so that there are 3 ways to refer to a disk, by RAID number, by DISK ID number and by SCSI number. The RAID disk is useful to determine if its a parity disk, a data disk, or a spare, but otherwise doesn't seem to tell a user much. The DISK ID is used for the raid command, but you still need to know the scsi address to actually remove/replace a disk. It seems that it could be reduced to just referring to/listing the SCSI addresses and whether its a data/parity/spare disk, then raid commands would be like 'raid fail 8a.7', and the messages would be 'unload of disk 8a.6 completed' and 'read on data disk 8a.6 failed'. Is there an obvious reason this isn't done?
RAID Disk DISK_ID# HA.SCSI# --------- -------- -------- parity 1 8a.1 data 1 2 8a.2
Brian Tao wrote:
Does anyone else find the wording of syslog messages confusing? Ialmost had a small heart attack when I saw this after failing out a marginal drive, thinking that two drives had just died. "Disk 8" and "Data disk 7" are the same thing, and I wish the filer would use one or the either.
Mon Aug 4 15:45:27 EDT [raid_disk_admin]: Unload of disk 8 has completed successfully. Mon Aug 4 15:45:27 EDT [raid_stripe_owner]: Read on data disk 7 failed, reverting to degraded mode.
-- Brian Tao (BT300, taob@netcom.ca) "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't"