Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2025 10:19:02 -0400 From: Robert <robert@webtent.org> To: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Replacing a REMOVED drive in DEGRADED zpool Message-ID: <c08fc246-a6de-47e7-ab3e-19c3d3815704@webtent.org> In-Reply-To: <86bjo9kvsv.fsf@ltc.des.dev> References: <b23924e3-b07f-44ec-ac30-2e3bae37a525@webtent.org> <bda11ba5-3b52-4f5d-9786-0fe190e07b1a@holgerdanske.com> <86bjo9kvsv.fsf@ltc.des.dev>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On 8/21/2025 2:56 AM, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> writes: >> Robert <robert@webtent.org> writes: >>> 3. Boot up and run `gpart backup ada1 > gpart.ada1` then `gpart >>> restore ada0 < gpart.ada1` >> Cloning ada1's GPT's (primary and secondary) to ada0 will result in >> duplicate identifiers on two disks -- UUID's, labels, etc.. > `gpart backup | gpart restore` does not copy UUIDs or labels. Good to know, this would be the best option then for preparing the drive for zpool-replace? >> [...] cloning the failed disk to the replacement disk could save >> effort. ddrescue(1) may be required to get past bad blocks. > You mean recoverdisk(1). Would recovering the disk be beneficial versus replace? As far as faster recovery, not needing to resilver or as much. These are not big drives as you can see and RAID10 zpool. Thanks for the pointers!help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?c08fc246-a6de-47e7-ab3e-19c3d3815704>