-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 12/29/2014 4:53 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > Get drives supporting configurable or faster recoveries. There's > no way around this.
Practically available right now? Sure. In theory, no. > This is a broken record topic honestly. The drives under > discussion aren't ever meant to be used in raid, they're desktop > drives, they're designed with long recoveries because it's > reasonable to try to The intention to use the drives in a raid is entirely at the discretion of the user, not the manufacturer. The only reason we are even having this conversation is because the manufacturer has added a misfeature that makes them sub-optimal for use in a raid. > recover the data even in the face of delays rather than not recover > at all. Whether there are also some design flaws in here I can't > say because I'm not a hardware designer or developer but they are > very clearly targeted at certain use cases and not others, not > least of which is their error recovery time but also their > vibration tolerance when multiple drives are in close proximity to > each other. Drives have no business whatsoever retrying for so long; every version of DOS or Windows ever released has been able to report an IO error and give the *user* the option of retrying it in the hopes that it will work that time, because drives used to be sane and not keep retrying a positively ridiculous number of times. > If you don't like long recoveries, don't buy drives with long > recoveries. Simple. Better to fix the software to deal with it sensibly instead of encouraging manufacturers to engage in hamstringing their lower priced products to coax more money out of their customers. > The device will absolutely provide a specific error so long as its > link isn't reset prematurely, which happens to be the linux > default behavior when combined with drives that have long error > recovery times. Hence the recommendation is to increase the linux > command timer value. That is the solution right now. If you want a > different behavior someone has to write the code to do it because > it doesn't exist yet, and so far there seems to be zero interest in > actually doing that work, just some interest in hand waiving that > it ought to exist, maybe. If this is your way of saying "patches welcome" then it probably would have been better just to say that. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUow8ZAAoJENRVrw2cjl5Rr9UH+wd3yJ1ZnoaxDG3JPCBq9MJb Tb6nhjHovRDREeus4UWLESp9kYUyy5OfKmahARhM6AbaBXWYeleoD9SEtMahFXfn /2Kn9yRBqZCBDloVQGNOUaSZyfhTRRl31cGABbbynRo6IDkLEfMQQPWgvz9ttch7 3aPciHhehs1CeseNuiiUPk6HIMb8lJLvgW5J1O5FwgXZ6Wyi9OZdoPL+prnFh2bP 5E2rGblYUHIUiLkOKFOOsEs8q2H9RICFJIBsz8KoPzjCDtdNETBF5mvx8bIUJpg0 Q7cQOo7IRxpFUL/7gnBtWgRIw3lvRY+SY2G+2YwaMiqdeuYcLCr853ONDYg0NCc= =AYGW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
