lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Dec]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: RAID timeout parameter accessibility request
From
Thanks guys for your answers (please remember to keep CCing me).

Robert Hancock wrote:
> This always seemed a strange use case to me. If the drive is getting
> read errors, either it's dying and needs to be replaced, or it has a
> sporadic bad sector as a result of a power failure during write, etc. in
> which case the drive should be resynchronized. In either case the drive
> should be dropped from the array and require manual intervention. It
> doesn't seem logical to me to just read the data from another drive and
> carry on in our merry way without any warning.

--> A warning message is OK, but dropping the drive from the array is
excessive IMHO. And anyway, this should be user-configurable, so that it
becomes each user's responsibility to choose if the drive shall be dropped
or not. Currently we don't have any choice.

Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> Not sure about Debian, but perhaps /sys/block/md0/md/safe_mode_delay
> does something?

--> I'll check that out. Does someone know about how this "safe mode delay"
works ?

Thanasis wrote:
> WD 2500YS
> price same as an IDE or SATA

--> All RAID edition drives are more expensive that their equivalent
"desktop edition" drives (same model on "desktop edition"). Just take a look
at newegg for instance. Besides, trying to find an affordable "RAID edition"
model is not a solution to this technical timeout issue, just a workaraound
(a bad one IMHO). Thanks anyway.




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-12-31 10:57    [W:0.034 / U:0.072 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site