jared at blip.tv
Tue May 1 17:36:58 UTC 2007
ooh! I had no idea.
MogileFS continues to be awesome. thanks Brad.
From: Brad Fitzpatrick [mailto:brad at danga.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 1:33 PM
To: Jared Klett
Cc: mogilefs at lists.danga.com
Subject: RE: disk monitoring
Why aren't you using mogautomount? It comes with the mogilefs server
and takes care of all this, so you don't accidentally make mistakes:
On Tue, 1 May 2007, Jared Klett wrote:
> so far I've built all our MogileFS nodes with 3ware/AMCC
> (we were using RAID-5 before Mogile) which do a great job of
> monitoring disks on a regular basis and sending e-mail notification
> when anything from a bad sector is detected to an entire drive
> the downside is that when a drive *does* fail and the drive is
> replaced, the 3ware controller doesn't keep its internal unit IDs
> consistent, which then in turn causes devices in Linux to change, i.e.
> /dev/sdc fails and now /dev/sdd shifts to become /dev/sdc, which
> requires extremely careful manual remounting at the Mogile mount
> hope that makes sense... if anyone has a solution to avoid that,
> please let me know. :)
> anyway, in the past I've used homegrown scripts to do things
> write a temporary file to the device to be checked, make sure the file
> exists, and send an alert e-mail if a problem arises during those
> - Jared
> Jared Klett
> Co-founder, Blip.tv
> JaredAtWrok (aim)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mogilefs-bounces at lists.danga.com
> [mailto:mogilefs-bounces at lists.danga.com] On Behalf Of Eric Lambrecht
> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 12:21 PM
> To: mogilefs at lists.danga.com
> Subject: Re: disk monitoring
> That paper is fascinating!
> Honestly, though, I don't care if SMART predicts the drive failure, I
> just want to know when a drive has actually failed so we can 'dead' it
> and not end up in a situation where two drives are down and we start
> losing data.
> ...... Original Message .......
> On Tue, 1 May 2007 11:11:03 +0300 "Egor Egorov" <egor at fine.kiev.ua>
> >On 1 may 2007, at 03:23, Eric Lambrecht wrote:
> >> A cursory look on the web makes me think 'smartmontools.sf.net'
> >> might work pretty well, as I think all our machines ultimately use
> >> SATA drives.
> >The Google team found that 36% of the failed drives did not exhibit a
> >single SMART-monitored failure. They concluded that SMART data is
> >almost useless for predicting the failure of a single drive.
> >Very interesting paper.
> > Egor Egorov
> > http://www.fine.kiev.ua/
More information about the mogilefs