Hi Helmut, Am Montag, 10. Oktober 2011 schrieb Helmut Hullen: > > The thing is that marking sectors bad is a > > (pretty poor) band-aid for a much bigger problem: If you're hitting > > persistent read errors and re-writing the blocks doesn't fix it, your > > disk is already close to being completely kaput and no amount of > > software is going to help with that. > > The next steps could be: > > - adding a new 2-TByte disk (now there are 3 2-TByte disks) > - balancing > - removing the bad 2-TByte disk > > But I'm afraid when I run balancing then the bad sectors damage big > parts of the contents. I've had such bad luck about 1 year ago, > losing about 2 TByte of data (ok - I had a kind of backup in a > neighbout town). I don't like to reproduce this experience. > > I'm afraid I have to buy 3 (or 4) 2-TByte disks, building them as a > new raid0-data cluster and copy the complete contents from the old > cluster to the new one. Doesn't sound good. RAID-0 and valuable (?) data does not match together. So if you go 4 disks, consider a RAID 10 ;). Then you could set the disk faulty, put in a new one and let BTRFS resync/balance the RAID. But if everything is only stored on one disk thats not possible. A RAID 5 might also be an alternative, but I am not sure, whether RAID-5 is already working with BTRFS. I heard about plans to borrow some SoftRAID code for that. Ciao, -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
