From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Greaves Subject: Re: Interesting article Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 11:09:00 +0000 Message-ID: <496F194C.2050002@dgreaves.com> References: <496E44DE.7090200@harddata.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Chris Worley Cc: Maurice Hilarius , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Chris Worley wrote: > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Maurice Hilarius wrote: >> I read this today: >> http://blogs.zdnet.com/storage/?p=162 >> >> Would anyone who knows enough about this care to comment? > > We need disks continuously scanned in spare cycles, and offline the > drives (or remap the sectors) as soon as an error is found. > > Also, when rebuilding an array, don't stop due to a read failure. > mark the sector as bad and complete the rebuild. > > Waiting for a drive to fail has been too late to recover the array, in > my experience. Agreed - and I think another huge gap is that when you lose a block you really should be able to find out what file was affected. Doable on ext3 but not (AFAIK) xfs. Though that is a filesystem issue, not a RAID issue. David