From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id n7U1Np9M253744 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2009 20:24:01 -0500 Received: from mail.sandeen.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 148DE1583F3D for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2009 18:24:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.sandeen.net (sandeen.net [209.173.210.139]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id zmVf6e7ulCMUm83b for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2009 18:24:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4A99D4DF.50003@sandeen.net> Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 18:24:47 -0700 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: xfs data loss References: <4A975A35.3060809@sandeen.net> <4A981133.6060009@sandeen.net> In-Reply-To: List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: "Passerone, Daniele" Cc: "xfs@oss.sgi.com" Passerone, Daniele wrote: > I would like to ask mr. Peter Grandi, whether it is really necessary > to delivery ist vaste knowledge in such a harsh way. Is this the > habit of this mailing list? Not generally. > Apart from that, thank you for you help. I understand that RAID5 is > not the ideal solution for that system, and I admit that in the > urgence of solving the /md4 problem I miswrote the problem of /md6, > which of course was "erased" and not "repaired". > > But apart from that, it is not as easy to backup 20 TB, so we decided > to set it as data storage leaving the responsibilty of the backup to > our users. I do not consider it completely absurd. I think others have pointed out, though, that you start -increasing- the risk of failure at a certain point... > Moreover, when a raid loses 2 devices, and the devices are still ok, > it is possible to reassemble the raid by assuming the devices clean. > > This is not the case for /Raid/md4, where apparently all devices are > there. This all seems most likely to be a raid failure problem, but it's hard to know. I can't imagine why you're getting suddenly-disappearing directories without a reboot or even a single error message; I just don't know what to make of that. -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs