Messages in this thread |  | | | Subject | Re: Driver retries disk errors. | | From | Alan Cox <> | | Date | Tue, 31 Aug 2004 15:12:52 +0100 |
| |
On Maw, 2004-08-31 at 14:54, Rogier Wolff wrote: > So, can we agree on: > - might be needed for > - Floppies? > - MO drives > - older drives
Other random stuff it saves our backside on we don't know about.
> How about we set the num-retries to 1, and increase to 8 for > "weird devices" (floppy, MO), and older drives.
Disagree. I want it robust. If you want to set low retry counts then the user should do so for special cases like forensics.
> I do want to make the num_retries thing a configurable parameter, > should the autodetect get it wrong: We get drives that we want to > recover without the kernel-level retries...
Making it configurable is good, but I can't help feeling that this belongs at the block layer - I wonder what Jens thinks, it might well have to be done by the driver because only the driver knows enough but the ioctl/config option ought to be common.
> (still: I argue that you need to consider a "retry-works" error as an > early warning that your media is going bad, and you need to get your > data off ASAP! If the kernel silently retries and succeeds, the user > won't notice a thing and continue using the drive (or MO media) until > the error becomes irrecoverable. I recommend we put the retry at the > user level. As in "person behind keyboard".)
M/O media retries generally do the right thing and have the right effect. If you want to know if your drive is failing use SMART and ask the drive
Remember: Storage appliance not disk. Treat it like a storage appliance and you'll get better results.
Alan
- 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/
|  |