From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Asdo Subject: Re: feature suggestion to handle read errors during re-sync of raid5 Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 23:04:09 +0100 Message-ID: <4B64ACD9.7020207@shiftmail.org> References: <4B6471A1.2070407@texsoft.it> <4B6482BD.6090102@anonymous.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-reply-to: Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Mikael Abrahamsson Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > I think the 4k sector size on WD20EARS (for instance) is supposed to > add more ECC information but I'm not sure how this will affect the > 10^14 error rate. I think the manufacturers need to work a bit more on > it, I don't see how these drives can be used in single drive > configuration with the current 10^14 value. > > I don't have experience with any other drives than the WD20EADS but > they develop read errors at a rate higher than any other drive I've > experienced before.... We are thinking about buying a large number of WD2002FYPS RE4-GP for a large array (raid-6) Anyone knows if the error rate is so high on those drives too? Do they also use 4k sectors? Mikael, how do you find this out? Is the 4k sectors a RMW emulation as written in http://lwn.net/Articles/322777/ or Linux sees them really as 4k block devices? And if it's the second, were there side effects on this? Thank you