Yes!
I wouldn't do that unless someone held a gun to my head (imagine _that_ scenerio!).
what you (Douglas) could do is buy a bigger drive (36GB if you have 18's) and plop that in as a spare, then leave only one 18GB spare and the 36GB spare and it should build on the 18GB first (if the rest of your disks are 18 of course) then if you have another loss, it'll use the 36GB.
I believe the instructors intent was probably to say that it is possible, but you shouldn't do it...
-corris
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Frank Smith wrote:
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 18:10:10 -0500 From: Frank Smith fsmith@hoovers.com To: toasters@mathworks.com Subject: Re: volume/shelf containment
Wouldn't it be at least slightly risky to pull all your spares plus one of your data drives for the duration of a rebuild?
Frank
--On 07/10/00 16:57:17 -0400 Douglas Ritschel Douglas.Ritschel@fnc.fujitsu.com wrote:
The main point was that there is no way to tell the filer to build on a specific spare. And the only way, according to the NetApp class that I took, (without shutting down and shuffling drives), is to replace the failed drive, and remove all of the spares, including the one that the array rebuilt on. Without any spares in the system, the array will rebuild on the new drive.
Frank Smith fsmith@hoovers.com Systems Administrator Voice: 512-374-4673 Hoover's Online Fax: 512-374-4501