----- Original Message ----- From: "kevin graham" kgraham@dotnetdotcom.org To: "Bruce Sterling Woodcock" sirbruce@ix.netcom.com Cc: "Corris Randall" corris@acc.am.ericsson.se; toasters@mathworks.com Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2000 12:36 PM Subject: Re: volume/shelf containment
Unless the failed disk is the parity, in which case the 36gb will be used.
[...]
If it fails over to the 36GB drive when an 18 is available, I would consider that a bug.
The largest spare available will always be used to rebuild a parity disk, regardless of its original size (from the SA Guide). Just closed the PDF, but it was under 'managing disks'.
Hmm. I'd consider that a bug, even if it "rebuilds and resizes to the new size" as it does when you add a new drive. If I have a legacy raid group of 18GB drives, and a new group of 36GB drives, I want the parity drive from the smaller RAID group to chosen the smaller global parity spare.
Any comments from Netapp personnel?
Putting only 1 of a larger disk is always a dangerous thing, as you're essentially running w/o a spare.
I don't follow what you mean here. He's talking about only one 36GB drive and having it be a "second spare". (Presumably this is safer than having only one global spare available, since you want it to use the
36GB
in case the other raid group fails before you can replace it.)
Ah, I must have gotten lost in the thread.. I had thought this was an attempt to start adding 36's and force a fail to move to the new disk.
Or maybe I was the lost one... we've discussed a couple of different things...
Bruce