Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 17 Jan 2006 11:08:30 -0500 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 000 of 5] md: Introduction | From | (Ross Vandegrift) |
| |
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 02:26:11PM +0300, Michael Tokarev wrote: > Raid code is already too fragile, i'm afraid "simple" I/O errors > (which is what we need raid for) may crash the system already, and > am waiting for the next whole system crash due to eg superblock > update error or whatnot.
I think you've got some other issue if simple I/O errors cause issues. I've managed hundreds of MD arrays over the past ~ten years. MD is rock solid. I'd guess that I've recovered at least a hundred disk failures where data was saved by mdadm.
What is your setup like? It's also possible that you've found a bug.
> I saw all sorts of failures due to > linux softraid already (we use it here alot), including ones > which required complete array rebuild with heavy data loss.
Are you sure? The one thing that's not always intuitive about MD - a faild array often still has your data and you can recover it. Unlike hardware RAID solutions, you have a lot of control over how the disks are assembled and used - this can be a major advantage.
I'd say once a week someone comes on the linux-raid list and says "Oh no! I accidently ruined my RAID array!". Neil almost always responds "Well, don't do that! But since you did, this might help...".
-- Ross Vandegrift ross@lug.udel.edu
"The good Christian should beware of mathematicians, and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of Hell." --St. Augustine, De Genesi ad Litteram, Book II, xviii, 37 - 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/
| |