Messages in this thread | | | From | John Bradford <> | Subject | Re: Are linux-fs's drive-fault-tolerant by concept? | Date | Sun, 20 Apr 2003 14:59:00 +0100 (BST) |
| |
> Ok, you mean active error-recovery on reading. My basic point is the writing > case. A simple handling of write-errors from the drivers level and a retry to > write on a different location could help a lot I guess.
A filesystem is not the place for that - it could either be done at a lower level, like I suggested in a separate post, or at a much higher level - E.G. a database which encounters a write error could dump it's entire contents to a tape drive, shuts down, and page an administrator, on the basis that the write error indicated impending drive failiure.
> > Buy IDE disks in pairs use md1, and remember to continually send the > > hosed ones back to the vendor/shop (and if they keep appearing DOA to > > your local trading standards/fair trading type bodies). > > Just to give some numbers: from 25 disk I bought during last half > year 16 have gone dead within the first month. This is > ridiculous. Of course they are all returned and guarantee-replaced, > but it gets on ones nerves to continously replace disks, the rate > could be lowered if one could use them at least 4 months (or upto a > deadline number of bad blocks mapped by the fs - still guarantee but > fewer replacement cycles).
Are you using the disks within their operational limits? Are you sure they are not overheating and/or being run 24/7 when they are not intended to be?
John. - 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/
| |