Messages in this thread | | | From | Denis Vlasenko <> | Subject | Re: Are linux-fs's drive-fault-tolerant by concept? | Date | Mon, 21 Apr 2003 11:37:00 +0300 |
| |
On 19 April 2003 21:41, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > Hi, > Besides the problem that most drive manufacturers now seem to use > cheese as the data storage surface, I think there are some other > problems: > > 1) I don't trust drive firmware. > 2) I don't think all drives are set to remap sectors by default. > 3) I don't believe that all drivers recover neatly from a drive error. > 4) It is OK saying return the drive and get a new one - but many of > us can't do this in a commercial environment where the contents of > the drive are confidential - leading to stacks of dead drives > (often many inside their now short warranty periods).
And sadly,
2) I don't trust Linux (driver + fs) will react adequately to disk errors.
Drive failures aren't that frequent, and relevant code paths doomed to stay rarely tested (unless we put 0.00001% 'faked' failures there ;) -- vda - 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/
| |