Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 20 Apr 2003 18:55:12 +0200 | From | Stephan von Krawczynski <> | Subject | Re: Are linux-fs's drive-fault-tolerant by concept? |
| |
On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 14:59:00 +0100 (BST) John Bradford <john@grabjohn.com> wrote:
> > 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.
Can you tell me what is so particularly bad about the idea to cope a little bit with braindead (or just-dying) hardware? See, a car (to name a real good example) is not primarily built to have accidents. Anyway everybody might agree that having a safety belt built into it is a good idea, just to make the best out of a bad situation - even if it never happens - , or not?
> 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?
No. The only thing we do is completely re-writing them once a day (data gets exchanged). So our usage pattern is not: dump data on it and thats it (like most of the people might do with big disks).
Regards, Stephan
- 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/
| |