Messages in this thread | | | From | John Bradford <> | Subject | Re: Are linux-fs's drive-fault-tolerant by concept? | Date | Sun, 20 Apr 2003 18:12:54 +0100 (BST) |
| |
> > On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 14:59:00 +0100 (BST) > John Bradford <john@grabjohn.com> 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. > > > > A filesystem is not the place for that - it could either be done at a > > lower level, like I suggested in a separate post, or at a much higher > > level - E.G. a database which encounters a write error could dump it's > > entire contents to a tape drive, shuts down, and page an > > administrator, on the basis that the write error indicated impending > > drive failiure. > > Can you tell me what is so particularly bad about the idea to cope a > little bit with braindead (or just-dying) hardware?
Nothing - what is wrong is to implement it in a filesystem, where it does not belong.
> See, a car (to name a real good example) is not primarily built to have > accidents.
Stunt cars are built to survive accidents. All cars _could_ be built like stunt cars, but they aren't.
> Anyway everybody might agree that having a safety belt built into it > is a good idea, just to make the best out of a bad situation - even > if it never happens - , or not?
Exactly, that is why most modern hard disks retry on write failiure.
John. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |