From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263490AbTDSWuo (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Apr 2003 18:50:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263494AbTDSWuo (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Apr 2003 18:50:44 -0400 Received: from pc2-cwma1-4-cust86.swan.cable.ntl.com ([213.105.254.86]:60880 "EHLO lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263490AbTDSWum (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Apr 2003 18:50:42 -0400 Subject: Re: Are linux-fs's drive-fault-tolerant by concept? From: Alan Cox To: Stephan von Krawczynski Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List In-Reply-To: <20030419190046.6566ed18.skraw@ithnet.com> References: <20030419180421.0f59e75b.skraw@ithnet.com> <1050766175.3694.4.camel@dhcp22.swansea.linux.org.uk> <20030419190046.6566ed18.skraw@ithnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: Message-Id: <1050789876.3961.22.camel@dhcp22.swansea.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-5) Date: 19 Apr 2003 23:04:36 +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. > 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) >