Re: limits on raid

[david@lang.hm]

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Mattias Wadenstein wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Neil Brown wrote:
>
>>  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....
>
> In theory, that's how storage should work. In practice, silent data 
> corruption does happen. If not from the disks themselves, somewhere along the 
> path of cables, controllers, drivers, buses, etc. If you add in fcal, you'll 
> get even more sources of failure, but usually you can avoid SANs (if you care 
> about your data).

heh, the pitch I get from the self proclaimed experts is that if you care 
about your data you put it on the san (so you can take advantage of the 
more expensive disk arrays, various backup advantages, and replication 
features that tend to be focused on the san becouse it's a big target)

David Lang

> Well, here is a couple of the issues that I've seen myself:
>
> A hw-raid controller returning every 64th bit as 0, no matter what's on disk. 
> With no error condition at all. (I've also heard from a collegue about this 
> on every 64k, but not seen that myself.)
>
> An fcal switch occasionally resetting, garbling the blocks in transit with 
> random data. Lost a few TB of user data that way.
>
> Add to this the random driver breakage that happens now and then. I've also 
> had a few broken filesystems due to in-memory corruption due to bad ram, not 
> sure there is much hope of fixing that though.
>
> Also, this presentation is pretty worrying on the frequency of silent data 
> corruption:
>
> https://indico.desy.de/contributionDisplay.py?contribId=65&sessionId=42&confId=257
>
> /Mattias Wadenstein
>
>