On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 13:17 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Austin S Hemmelgarn
> wrote:
>
> > General thoughts on this:
> > 1. If there's a write error, we fail unconditionally right now. It
> > would be
> > nice to have a configurable number
On 2015-12-02 00:43, Qu Wenruo wrote:
[...]
>
> And block layer provides its own listen interface, reporting errors
> like ATA error.
Could you point me to this kind of interface
--
gpg @keyserver.linux.it: Goffredo Baroncelli
Key fingerprint BBF5 1610 0B64 DAC6 5F7D 17B2 0EDA 9B37 8B82
On 12/03/2015 03:07 AM, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
On 2015-12-02 00:43, Qu Wenruo wrote:
[...]
And block layer provides its own listen interface, reporting errors
like ATA error.
Could you point me to this kind of interface
Not yet, and that's the problem...
Thanks,
Qu
--
To
On 2015-11-30 13:43, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> On 11/30/2015 03:59 PM, Anand Jain wrote:
>> (fixed alignment)
>>
>>
[...]
>
> I'm overall OK with your *current* hot-spare implement.
> It's quite small and straightforward.
> Just hope some more more easy-to-implement features, like hot-remove
On 11/30/2015 11:09 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Austin S Hemmelgarn
wrote:
I've had multiple cases of disks that got one write error then were fine for
more than a year before any further issues. My thought is add an option to
retry that
On 12/1/2015 12:05 PM, Brendan Hide wrote:
On 11/30/2015 11:09 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Austin S Hemmelgarn
wrote:
I've had multiple cases of disks that got one write error then were
fine for
more than a year before any further issues.
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Austin S Hemmelgarn
wrote:
> I've had multiple cases of disks that got one write error then were fine for
> more than a year before any further issues. My thought is add an option to
> retry that single write after some short delay (1-2s
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Austin S Hemmelgarn
wrote:
> General thoughts on this:
> 1. If there's a write error, we fail unconditionally right now. It would be
> nice to have a configurable number of retries before failing.
I'm unconvinced. I pretty much immediately
On 2015-11-30 15:17, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Austin S Hemmelgarn
wrote:
General thoughts on this:
1. If there's a write error, we fail unconditionally right now. It would be
nice to have a configurable number of retries before failing.
I'm
Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote on 2015/11/30 09:51 -0500:
On 2015-11-30 02:59, Anand Jain wrote:
Data center systems are generally aligned with the RAS (Reliability,
Availability and Serviceability) attributes. When it comes to Storage,
RAS applies even more because its matter of trust. In this
(fixed alignment)
Data center systems are generally aligned with the RAS (Reliability,
Availability and Serviceability) attributes. When it comes to Storage,
RAS applies even more because its matter of trust. In this context, one
of the primary area that a typical volume manager
On 11/30/2015 03:59 PM, Anand Jain wrote:
(fixed alignment)
Data center systems are generally aligned with the RAS (Reliability,
Availability and Serviceability) attributes. When it comes to Storage,
RAS applies even more because its matter of trust. In this context, one
of
On 2015-11-30 02:59, Anand Jain wrote:
Data center systems are generally aligned with the RAS (Reliability,
Availability and Serviceability) attributes. When it comes to Storage,
RAS applies even more because its matter of trust. In this context, one
of the primary area that a typical volume
Data center systems are generally aligned with the RAS (Reliability,
Availability and Serviceability) attributes. When it comes to Storage,
RAS applies even more because its matter of trust. In this context, one
of the primary area that a typical volume manager should be well
14 matches
Mail list logo