Messages in this thread | | | From | "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <> | Subject | RE: LOTS OF BAD STUFF in raid0: raid0145-19990824-2.2.11 is unstable | Date | Fri, 5 Nov 1999 12:34:43 -0800 |
| |
FWIW, I've had a RAID0 partion, doing UseNet, for the past year. No problems found to date. It's pair of 2GB SCSI-W on an adaptec AHA290x controller. The kernel is v2.0.37. I have had problems in the past where the disk was flakey (but not completely dead) and the RAID stuff didn't help me much in detremining that. In those cases, I had to remount the disk, outside of the RAID environment, and run single-disk diagnostics. In one extreme case, only black-box replacement of the drive yielded the fact that it was the drive (process of elimination). I RMA'd the drive and everything has been working fine since. I could not have diagnosed the problem had I not had spare machines and extra hard drives to compare against.
There are many cases where swap-n-pray is the ONLY diagnostic mechanism that works (unless you have extensive hardware testing facilities, of course). The lesson is, the problem's not always software.
> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-linux-raid@vger.rutgers.edu > [mailto:owner-linux-raid@vger.rutgers.edu]On Behalf Of David Mansfield > Sent: Friday, November 05, 1999 11:29 AM > To: Ingo Molnar > Cc: Michael K. Johnson; linux-raid@vger.rutgers.edu; > linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu; Alan Cox > Subject: Re: LOTS OF BAD STUFF in raid0: raid0145-19990824-2.2.11 is > unstable > > > > > it's 99.99% a problem with the disk. The RAID0 code has not had any > > significant changes (due to it's simplicity) in the last > couple of years. > > We never rule out software bugs, but this is one of those > cases where it's > > way, way down in the list of potential problem sources. > > > > -- mingo > > > > So all of the 'attempt to access beyond end of device' errors reported > over the last 6 months, both RAID and standard kernel are all > chalked up > to hardware failure? I mean, that's what this is. It just > hits the RAID0 > request layer BEFORE the standard check that generates the > 'attempt...' > error. I believe there is a bug lurking, because people keep > reporting > the 'attempt...' error, and this is that exact problem, it just hits a > different place. > > My $.02 (and very little kernel hacking exp :-( ) make me > believe there is > still one bug in the buffer-cache code (generic kernel) that > causes this, > but thanks for the feedback. I'll shut-up now. > > David > > -- > /==============================\ > | David Mansfield | > | david@cobite.com | > \==============================/ >
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |