4 ms·
This happened 4 years ago so I found the emails to refresh my memory. Here's what happened according to the emails I have; 1 - I woke up to an unresponsive ser
by Timucin 8y ago
This happened 4 years ago so I found the emails to refresh my memory. Here's what happened according to the emails I have;
1 - I woke up to an unresponsive server in the morning. Couldn't reach to the server in any way.
2 - Got in touch with the support and they asked me to give them like 50 mins to check the hardware and disks and get back to me with;
Dear Client,
We have found this disk S/N xxx defective. Please confirm the full data loss
on it in order to replace it.
right after that they wrote;
Dear Client,
We have found this disk S/N xxx defective. Please confirm the full data loss
on it in order to replace it.
I asked if they mean data lost on this single disk or the whole array, they said;
Dear Client,
We cannot tell you how is going to react the raid controller as can happens also
data loss if it is defective. For that, we recommend before to take Backups of the
data. When you are sure to replace the disk tell us, confirm data loss and we will
do it.
after many emails and sharing error messages I've got from the raid controller Hetzner said;
Dear Client,
We see our test reported that 2 drives are faulty, but we have replaced one of
this only. Now, we could offer to replace the second faulty one (SN: xxx).
Could we do this anytime?
I don't know what kind of test they did but I believe the report he mentioned is from the very first diagnose they did.
I wouldn't know the details since I didn't argue on how they could oversee this, I tried to find a solution.
Edit : I fixed the order of messages.
- TimWolla 8y agoThank you for looking that up. Hardware usually does not fail from one day to the next, so to me it appears like your HDD monitoring was insufficient in the weeks / months leading the full crash. It should have detected the disks going bad and allow you to request a replacement with 3 of 4 disks being good and then later a replacement of the second bad disk with 3 of 4 being good, no? > I asked if they mean data lost on this single disk or the whole array, they said; IMO this is the correct answer from Hetzner. They cannot know whether you run RAID 1 (which would be good), RAID 5 (which would have killed the array), RAID 6 (good) or RAID 10 (might or might not be good). Asking before replacing could possibly allow you to save data in case the disk is not completely dead, but rather has a bunch of faulty sectors only. The only issue I personally see is the bad English. I am German like Hetzner and even I have issues understanding that grammar.