On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 17:08:27 -0700 (PDT)
Mr. James W. Laferriere [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello All , I was under the impression that a 'machine check' would be
caused by some near to the CPU hardware failure , Not a bad disk ?
It indicates a hardware failure
Jul 14 23:00:26
Ar Iau, 2006-08-24 am 09:07 -0400, ysgrifennodd Adam Kropelin:
Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
with sw RAID of course if the builder is careful to use multiple PCI
cards, etc. Sw RAID over your motherboard's onboard controllers leaves
you vulnerable.
Generally speaking the channels on
Ar Iau, 2006-08-24 am 07:31 -0700, ysgrifennodd Marc Perkel:
So - the bottom line answer to my question is that unless you are
running raid 5 and you have a high powered raid card with cache and
battery backup that there is no significant speed increase to use
hardware raid. For raid 0 there
On Mer, 2006-01-18 at 09:14 +0100, Sander wrote:
If the (harddisk internal) remap succeeded, the OS doesn't see the bad
sector at all I believe.
True for ATA, in the SCSI case you may be told about the remap having
occurred but its a by the way type message not an error proper.
If you (the
On Wednesday May 16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(more patches to come. They will go to Linus, Alan, and linux-raid only).
This is the next one, which actually addresses the NULL Checking
Bug.
Thanks. As Linus merges I'll switch over to match his tree. Less diff is good 8)
-
To
1) Read and write errors should be retried at least once before kicking
the drive out of the array.
This doesn't seem unreasonable on the face of it.
Device level retries are the job of the device level driver
2) On more persistent read errors, the failed block (or whatever unit is
any data, but under normal default drive setup the sector will not be
reallocated. If testing the failing sector is too much effort, a
simple overwrite with the corrected data, at worst, improves the
chances of the drive firmware being able to reallocate the sector.
This works just fine
Umm. Isn't RAID implemented as the md device? That implies that it is
responsible for some kind of error management. Bluntly, the file systems
don't declare a file system kaput until they've retried the critical
I/O operations. Why should RAID5 be any less tolerant?
File systems give up the
