From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263623AbTDTQMQ (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Apr 2003 12:12:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263624AbTDTQMQ (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Apr 2003 12:12:16 -0400 Received: from mail.ithnet.com ([217.64.64.8]:43023 "HELO heather.ithnet.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S263623AbTDTQMP (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Apr 2003 12:12:15 -0400 Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 18:24:13 +0200 From: Stephan von Krawczynski To: Alan Cox Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Are linux-fs's drive-fault-tolerant by concept? Message-Id: <20030420182413.7574930a.skraw@ithnet.com> In-Reply-To: <1050789876.3961.22.camel@dhcp22.swansea.linux.org.uk> References: <20030419180421.0f59e75b.skraw@ithnet.com> <1050766175.3694.4.camel@dhcp22.swansea.linux.org.uk> <20030419190046.6566ed18.skraw@ithnet.com> <1050789876.3961.22.camel@dhcp22.swansea.linux.org.uk> Organization: ith Kommunikationstechnik GmbH X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.11 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 19 Apr 2003 23:04:36 +0100 Alan Cox wrote: > On Sad, 2003-04-19 at 18:00, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote: > > Ok, you mean active error-recovery on reading. My basic point is the > > writing case. A simple handling of write-errors from the drivers level and > > a retry to write on a different location could help a lot I guess. > > It would make no difference. The IDE drive firmware already knows about > such things. Hm, maybe this is only another field where "knowing" differs from "doing" (the right thing) sometimes. > > Just to give some numbers: from 25 disk I bought during last half year 16 > > have gone dead within the first month. This is ridiculous. Of course they > > are all returned and guarantee-replaced, but it gets on ones nerves to > > continously replace disks, the rate could be lowered if one could use them > > at least 4 months (or upto a deadline number of bad blocks mapped by the fs > > - still guarantee but fewer replacement cycles). > > I'd be changing vendors and also looking at my power/heat/vibration for > that level of problems. I'm sure google consider hard disks as a > consumable but not the rest of us 8) Maybe I have something in common with google, I am re-writing large parts (well over 50%) of the harddrives capacity on a daily basis (in the discussed setup). How many people really do that? Regards, Stephan