From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Sat, 07 Apr 2007 13:47:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.lichtvoll.de (mondschein.lichtvoll.de [194.150.191.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id l37KlefB023317 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2007 13:47:42 -0700 Received: from localhost (dslb-084-056-094-087.pools.arcor-ip.net [84.56.94.87]) by mail.lichtvoll.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58DE55ADBB for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2007 22:47:39 +0200 (CEST) From: Martin Steigerwald Subject: Re: XFS Resiliency to the disk errors. Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 22:47:37 +0200 References: (sfid-20070405_112347_743716_6E82B98E) (sfid-20070405_112347_743716_6E82B98E) (sfid-20070405_112347_743716_6E82B98E) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200704072247.38143.Martin@lichtvoll.de> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com Am Donnerstag 05 April 2007 schrieb Zak, Semion: > Hi, > > We are studying possibility to use XFS with cheap (not too reliable) > discs, so we have some questions: Hi Semion! I recommend at least monitoring the health status of the drives using smartmontools - with regular short and long selft test - or a similar mechanism. So you *may* at least be warned *before* a disk fails. Otherwise I would go for a redundant RAID array at least so that at least one drive in a bunch of drives can fail without data loss. Regards, -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7