From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263631AbTDTQzA (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Apr 2003 12:55:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263632AbTDTQy7 (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Apr 2003 12:54:59 -0400 Received: from siaab1aa.compuserve.com ([149.174.40.1]:61399 "EHLO siaab1aa.compuserve.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263631AbTDTQy7 (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Apr 2003 12:54:59 -0400 Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 13:03:02 -0400 From: Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Are linux-fs's drive-fault-tolerant by concept? To: "arjanv@redhat.com" Cc: linux-kernel Message-ID: <200304201306_MC3-1-3537-115@compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org arjan wrote: >> You will if it writes and fails to read back. The disk can't invent a >> sector that is gone. > > but linux can if you use an raid1 mirror... maybe we should teach the md > layer to write back the data from the other disk on a "bad sector" > error. I have some ugly code that forces all reads from a mirror set to a specific copy, set via a global sysctl. This lets you do things like make a backup from disk 0, then verify against disk 1 and take action if something is wrong. ------ Chuck