From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sander Subject: Re: [PATCH 000 of 5] md: Introduction Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 09:14:07 +0100 Message-ID: <20060118081407.GC18945@localhost.localdomain> References: <20060117174531.27739.patches@notabene> <43CCA80B.4020603@tls.msk.ru> <20060117095019.GA27262@localhost.localdomain> <43CCD453.9070900@tls.msk.ru> <20060117160829.GA16606@lug.udel.edu> <43CD3388.9050107@tls.msk.ru> Reply-To: sander@humilis.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <43CD3388.9050107@tls.msk.ru> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Michael Tokarev Cc: Ross Vandegrift , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Michael Tokarev wrote (ao): > Most problematic case so far, which I described numerous times (like, > "why linux raid isn't Raid really, why it can be worse than plain > disk") is when, after single sector read failure, md kicks the whole > disk off the array, and when you start resync (after replacing the > "bad" drive or just remapping that bad sector or even doing nothing, > as it will be remapped in almost all cases during write, on real > drives anyway), If the (harddisk internal) remap succeeded, the OS doesn't see the bad sector at all I believe. If you (the OS) do see a bad sector, the disk couldn't remap, and goes downhill from there, right? Sander -- Humilis IT Services and Solutions http://www.humilis.net