From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263645AbTDTRfe (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Apr 2003 13:35:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263646AbTDTRfd (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Apr 2003 13:35:33 -0400 Received: from siaag1ad.compuserve.com ([149.174.40.6]:62858 "EHLO siaag1ad.compuserve.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263645AbTDTRfd (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Apr 2003 13:35:33 -0400 Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 13:44:34 -0400 From: Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Are linux-fs's drive-fault-tolerant by concept? To: John Bradford Cc: linux-kernel Message-ID: <200304201347_MC3-1-353A-3A31@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 >> 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. > > That's interesting. Have you thought of making it read from _both_ > disks and check that the data matches, before passing it back? It didn't seem to be worth doing, since a userspace program could be written to do the same thing using my small patch. Only problem is, it uses a global sysctl that affects every mirror set in the machine, so it could affect performance of every mirror if used during load. ------ Chuck