Re: [Evms-devel] Some weirness in interface behaviour

[Mike T. <mh...@us...>]

On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 18:18, Michel Bouissou wrote:
> Le Samedi 16 Juillet 2005 01:05, Michel Bouissou a =E9crit :
> >
> > > EVMS developers discussed this issue before...  Why does the
> > > administrator want to purposely degrade an raid1/raid5 array?  It's
> > > possible to run into I/O errors on another member while the array i=
s
> > > running in degrade mode, so we avoid this situation.  If you want t=
o
> > > free up a member of raid5 array, you should replace it with a spare
> > > (i.e. Mark Faulty).  It's more safe this way, don't you think?
> >
> > And how if you want to replace a disk with another one, but cannot ad=
d the
> > other one FIRST as a spare, because you don't have room for another d=
isk in
> > your machine, or no more available controller, etc ?
> >
> > Then, you _need_ to first kick a drive out, then replace it. You can'=
t do
> > it the other way...
>=20
> Maybe my example wasn't that good, because of course, you could simply =
replace=20
> the disk you want to replace and let RAID discover that a disk has=20
> disappeared...
>=20
> But in my precise case I wanted to replace the disk with _itself_ after=
 having=20
> repartitioned it. So I had to kick it out because I didn't need or want=
 to=20
> physically remove it.
>=20
> You way also want to kick a disk out if you are in doubt and want to ru=
n=20
> extended tests on it while offline, etc. And you may not have any avail=
able=20
> spare -- but rely on existing good backups in case of a problem.
>=20
> I like security features, but only as long as I can decide to override =
them=20
> and stay master on board ;-) so I prefer a big ugly warning "are you re=
ally=20
> sure you want to do this ?" rather than not to have the option at all...

Your suggestion sounds reasonable.  For evmsgui and evmsn, I can put up
a big warning message.  For evms, the default action is "Yes, go ahead"
:)  Look for this change in next release of EVMS.

--
Regards,
Mike T.