Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 19 Oct 2003 01:19:09 -0700 (PDT) | From | Andre Hedrick <> | Subject | Re: Blockbusting news, results are in |
| |
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003, Paul wrote:
> Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com>, on Sat Oct 18, 2003 [09:15:53 PM] said: > > On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 11:16:42AM +0900, Norman Diamond wrote: > > > We need those bad block lists. They are as necessary as they ever were. > > > > I'm not sure why this is a news flash. When I was at Sun a 2GB drive > > cost us $4000. I think we sold them for $6000. You can't buy a 2GB > > drive today nor a 20GB drive. A 200GB drive costs $160. That's 100 > > times bigger for 25 times less money, or a net increase of price/capacity > > of 2500. In the same period of time, CPUs have not kept up though they > > are close. > > > > You're suprised that drives are unreliable? Please. You are getting > > unbelievable value from those drives and you demanded it. Price is the > > only way people make purchasing decisions, that's why DEC got out of the > > drive business, then HP did, and then IBM did. They couldn't afford to > > compete with the cutrate junk that we call drives today. > > > > I'm not blaming you, I'm as bad as the next guy, I buy based on price > > as well but I have no illusions that what I am buying is reliable. > > The drives we put into servers here go through a couple weeks of all bit > > patterns being changed and even then we don't depend on them, everything > > is backed up. > > > > I've told you guys over and over that you need to CRC the data in user > > space, we do that in our backup scripts and it tells us when the drives > > are going bad. So we don't get burned and you wouldn't either if you > > did the same thing. > > > > Drives are amazingly cheap, it's a miracle that they work at all, don't > > be so suprised when they don't. > > -- > > --- > > Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm > Hi; > > I think you may be missing the point he is trying to make > in order to take your hobby horse for a spin;) He is trying to > claim, that he has a disk that is not dying, that has a bad > sector that he cant get remapped, and thus, there needs to be > support for bad blocks in the filesystem layer. (in the face > of the argument that modern disks make filesystem support of > bad blocks irrelevant.)
First you have to make Linux have a direct path back to the application layer which owns the request. Then you can attempt a filesystem remapping code war.
Well basically there are ways to force invoke the remap but 99% of the people can not and will not go through the hassle. So I am not going to spend time explaining each and every vendor mode.
That is what people in media forensics get paid to do.
> As a side note, I also have a 6gig disk, which a few > years ago was, ahem, bumped during a write. It now has a handful > of screwy sectors, that I cant get rid of, even after doing > the stuff Norman describes. I used the -c option to e2fsck, > and its been doing great ever since-- a few years of use without > more bad sectors. > > Paul > set@pobox.com > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ >
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |