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
Alan Cox wrote:
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
Umm. Isn't RAID implemented as the md device? That implies
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Max TenEyck Woodbury wrote:
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
Alan Cox wrote:
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
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
Veritas Volume Manager has a "virtual" device driver (vxio) which handles the
intermediary step between the actual device driver and the higher level.
This allows for some advanced RAID possibilities - if a write fails to
complete, the ioctl returns a value of -1... That way you can execute a
(I've taken Alan and Linus off the Cc list. I'm sure they have plenty
to read, and may even be on linux-raid anyway).
On Thursday March 15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not too happy with the linux RAID5 implementation. In my
opinion, a number of changes need to be made, but I'm not sure how
