Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 30 Aug 2009 05:55:01 -0700 (PDT) | From | david@lang ... | Subject | Re: raid is dangerous but that's secret (was Re: [patch] ext2/3: document conditions when reliable operation is possible) |
| |
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009, Pavel Machek wrote:
>>> From: Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu> >>> >> To use your ABS brakes analogy, just becase it's not safe to rely on >> ABS brakes if the "check brakes" light is on, that doesn't justify >> writing something alarmist which claims that ABS brakes don't work >> 100% of the time, don't use ABS brakes, they're broken!!!! > > If it only was this simple. We don't have 'check brakes' (aka > 'journalling ineffective') warning light. If we had that, I would not > have problem. > > It is rather that your ABS brakes are ineffective if 'check engine' > (RAID degraded) is lit. And yes, running with 'check engine' for > extended periods may be bad idea, but I know people that do > that... and I still hope their brakes work (and believe they should > have won suit for damages should their ABS brakes fail).
the 'RAID degraded' warning says that _anything_ you put on that block device is at risk. it doesn't matter if you are using a filesystem with a journal, one without, or using the raw device directly.
David Lang
| |