Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 15:34:33 +0300 From: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@mail.turbofuzz.com> To: George Kontostanos <gkontos.mail@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, JF-Bogaerts <JF-Bogaerts@skynet.be> Subject: Re: HAST with broken HDD Message-ID: <15E8A3A7-2CFA-43F0-B9DB-1B0DBAB5304C@mail.turbofuzz.com> In-Reply-To: <CA%2BdUSypO8xTR3sh_KSL9c9FLxbGH%2BbTR9-gPdcCVd%2Bt0UgUF-g@mail.gmail.com> References: <542BC135.1070906@Skynet.be> <542BDDB3.8080805@internetx.com> <CA%2BdUSypO8xTR3sh_KSL9c9FLxbGH%2BbTR9-gPdcCVd%2Bt0UgUF-g@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Oct 1, 2014, at 3:28 PM, George Kontostanos = <gkontos.mail@gmail.com> wrote: > Are you saying that the pool will appear to be optimal even with a bad = drive? Yes. HAST means that ZFS won=E2=80=99t *see* a bad drive. It will just = continue to see =E2=80=9Ca drive=E2=80=9D even though one half of the = HAST pair has died. - Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15E8A3A7-2CFA-43F0-B9DB-1B0DBAB5304C>