From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nix Subject: Re: limits on raid Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:08:54 +0100 Message-ID: <87d4zp1355.fsf@hades.wkstn.nix> References: <18034.479.256870.600360@notabene.brown> <18034.3676.477575.490448@notabene.brown> <467273AB.9010202@argo.co.il> <18035.3009.568832.785308@notabene.brown> <20070618045759.GD85884050@sgi.com> <18041.59628.370832.633244@notabene.brown> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: In-Reply-To: <18041.59628.370832.633244@notabene.brown> (Neil Brown's message of "21 Jun 2007 03:57:09 +0100") Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Neil Brown Cc: David Chinner , Avi Kivity , david@lang.hm, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On 21 Jun 2007, Neil Brown stated: > I have that - apparently naive - idea that drives use strong checksum, > and will never return bad data, only good data or an error. If this > isn't right, then it would really help to understand what the cause of > other failures are before working out how to handle them.... Look at the section `Disks and errors' in Val Henson's excellent report on last year's filesystems workshop: . Most of the error modes given there lead to valid checksums and wrong data... (while you're there, read the first part too :) ) -- `... in the sense that dragons logically follow evolution so they would be able to wield metal.' --- Kenneth Eng's colourless green ideas sleep furiously