Jump to content

fjih

Members
  • Posts

    5
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

fjih last won the day on January 9

fjih had the most liked content!

fjih's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/3)

1

Reputation

  1. Thanks for the clarification. Just wanted to point out that I'm not asking for an implementation. I'm just looking for clarification of what is implemented. I understand DrivePool is not RAID. I'm making a statement that other redundant filesystems do offer healing and that DrivePool could implement a version of it.
  2. The difference is in determining the source of truth for the file. If both copies are readable and differ it's difficult to determine which file is correct. One might want to assume that the file with the newer modification time is more recent and therefore the correct one, but this is a dangerous assumption (see the reference post in my original post where Rob had to chkdsk a drive resulting in a file with a newer modification time but was 0kb). Doing the wrong operation here will result in data loss, and so it's in DrivePool's best interest to pose the question to the user and have them manually resolve it. In the case where one of the drives flat out fails to read the file the situation is different. The safest course of action is to again ask the user what to do, but this is not what other RAID type of systems do. If all the other drives do not produce a read error of the file we might assume that their copy of the data is correct. If the other drives' view of the file is correct, we can "heal" the bad drive's copy by writing the file back from the good drives back to the bad drive. Many parity based RAID systems take this approach. This silently handles a bad sector on the drive and we can continue operating without having to involve the user. The window of data loss is mostly closed; if we write the contents of the readable disk over to the unreadable disk, no extra data was lost other than what was already lost from the bad drive. Whether or not this is the correct course of action is debatable. My question is what DrivePool is implemented to do in this scenario. It may be that they do as you say and always leave it as a manual operation for the user to resolve. However, DrivePool could match what other parity RAID systems do and silently repair instead.
  3. Thanks VapechiK, but I'm looking at a slightly different question. I understand that DrivePool might not know what to do in case the contents of the two copies differ, but I'm wondering what it does when one of the copies is completely unreadable and produces a read error from the drive.
  4. Apologies if this has been answered, but I couldn't find it in the forums or manuals. The closest question I found was this one, but it has more to do with corrupted but readable contents. If I have two drives in a 2x duplication setup and a read of one of the drives results in an unrecoverable read error, will DrivePool repair the damage? In other RAID type setups, if a URE is encountered the failed read can be rebuilt from parity and written back to the failed drive. What steps does DrivePool take when encountering a read error of a duplicated drive?
  5. I received an email alert today from Scanner stating that one of my drives was "expected to fail within 24 hours". However, the email contains no further information as to what the reason for the prognosis other than stating "S.M.A.R.T. Failure". I immediately checked Scanner, and the drive is listed as Healthy. Additionally, I didn't receive a Pushover notification for the event. The test notification works fine. Checking the Scanner logs, I don't see anything around the timestamp indicating an issue other than what is likely the missing Pushover notification: Scanner.Service.exe Warning 0 [Notifications] Error sending notification for '#VIn'. The remote server returned an error: (400) Bad Request. 2023-03-27 16:33:42Z 603317826906 The disk in question is PHYSICALDRIVE5, and grepping the logs for this drive shows nothing for the entirety of the logs (spanning 6+ days) other than: Scanner.Service.exe Information 0 [Scheduler] Disk '\\.\PHYSICALDRIVE5' should not be scanning... and one instance of: Scanner.Service.exe Information 0 [DiskInfo] Creating '\\.\PHYSICALDRIVE5' The entirety of the email notification I received: StableBit Scanner S.M.A.R.T. Failure on "VENOM". One or more disks are expected to fail within 24 hours: Samsung SSD 840 EVO 500GB Model: Samsung SSD 840 EVO 500GB Serial number: S1DHNSAF691912M You are receiving this message because you have set up email notifications to be sent to this address from the StableBit Scanner. Edit: I should point out that I was hoping to see additional information on what S.M.A.R.T metric failed. This is my first failure notification in Scanner, so I'm not sure what to have expected. Additional information in the log would also be preferred. Edit2: Should have noted that I'm on version 2.6.3.3969
×
×
  • Create New...