Failure abatement approach for a failed storage unit

1. A method for execution by a vault management device of a storage network, the method comprising:

determining a failure impact level for vaults of the storage network based on a failed storage unit within the vaults, wherein the vaults include a first vault that is associated with a first set of storage units and a first decode threshold number, and a second vault that is associated with a second set of storage units and a second decode threshold number, and wherein the failure impact level is based on a number of non-failed storage units within each of the vaults;

determining a failure abatement approach based on the failure impact level; and

facilitating the failure abatement approach.

2. The method of claim 1 further comprises:

detecting the failed storage unit by receiving an error message from the failed storage unit.

3. The method of claim 1 further comprises:

detecting the failed storage unit by receiving an error message from a user computing device of the storage network.

4. The method of claim 1 further comprises:

detecting the failed storage unit by performing a storage unit failure query.

5. The method of claim 1 further comprises:

detecting the failed storage unit by performing a test.

6. The method of claim 1 further comprises:

detecting the failed storage unit by detecting a data slice error associated with the failed storage unit.

7. The method of claim 1 further comprises:

identifying the first vault and the second vault as associated with the failed storage unit by performing a vault association query.

8. The method of claim 1 , wherein the determining the failure impact level further comprises:

comparing a first number of non-failed storage units of the first set of storage units with the first decode threshold number to determine a first failure impact level of the first vault;

comparing a second number of non-failed storage units of the second set of storage units with the second decode threshold number to determine a second failure impact level of the second vault; and

comparing the first failure impact level and the second failure impact level to determine the failure impact level.

9. The method of claim 1 , wherein the first set of storage units is in common with the second set of storage units.

10. The method of claim 1 , wherein the first set of storage units includes at least one storage unit not in common with the second set of storage units.

11. The method of claim 1 , wherein the determining the failure abatement approach comprises:

determining to send a failed storage unit notification to one or more computing devices associated with the first and second vaults.

12. The method of claim 11 , wherein the determining the failure abatement approach comprises:

determining to activate at least one replacement storage unit for storing data associated with the failed storage unit.

13. The method of claim 12 , wherein the facilitating the failure abatement approach comprises:

sending the failed storage unit notification to the one or more computing devices associated with the first and second vaults.

14. The method of claim 12 , wherein the facilitating the failure abatement approach comprises:

activating the at least one replacement storage unit for storing the data associated with the failed storage unit, wherein the activating includes:

rebuilding the data associated with the failed storage unit to the replacement storage unit.

15. The method of claim 12 , wherein the facilitating the failure abatement approach comprises:

activating the at least one replacement storage unit for storing the data associated with the failed storage unit, wherein the activating includes:

migrating, by the vault management device, the data associated with the failed storage unit to the replacement storage unit.

16. The method of claim 1 further comprises:

detecting a second failed storage unit that is common to the first vault, the second vault, and a third vault, wherein the third vault is associated with a third set of storage units and a third decode threshold number, wherein the second failed storage unit is in each of the first, second, and third sets of storage units;

identifying a second number of non-failed storage units of the first, second, and third sets of storage units;

comparing the second number of non-failed storage units with the first decode threshold number, the second decode threshold number, and the third decode threshold number to determine a second failure impact level;

determining a second failure abatement approach based on the second failure impact level; and

facilitating the second failure abatement approach.

17. The method of claim 1 further comprises:

detecting the failed storage unit is common to the first vault and the second vault; and

comparing the number of non-failed storage units with the first and second decode threshold numbers to determine the failure impact level is of a first level based on the commonality of the first and second vaults.

18. The method of claim 17 further comprises:

determining the failed storage unit is common to the first vault, the second vault and a third vault of the vaults; and

determining the failure impact level is of a second level based on the commonality of the first, second and third vaults, wherein the second level is greater than the first.

19. The method of claim 1 , wherein the failure impact level is further based on the first decode threshold number.

20. The method of claim 19 , wherein the failure impact level is further based on the second decode threshold number.