Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 19 Apr 2003 18:04:21 +0200 | From | Stephan von Krawczynski <> | Subject | Are linux-fs's drive-fault-tolerant by concept? |
| |
Hello all,
after shooting down one of this bloody cute new very-big-and-poor IDE drives today I wonder whether it would be a good idea to give the linux-fs (namely my preferred reiser and ext2 :-) some fault-tolerance. I remember there have been some discussions along this issue some time ago and I guess remembering that it was decided against because it should be the drivers issue to give the fs a clean space to live, right? Unfortunately todays' reality seems to have gotten a lot worse comparing to one year ago. I cannot remember a lot of failed drives back then, but today about 20% seemed to be already shipped DOA. Most I came across have only small problems (few dead sectors), but they seemed to produce quite a lot of trouble - at least on my 3ware in non-RAID setup the box partly dies away because reiser feels quite unhappy about the non-recoverable disk-errors. I know this question can get religious, but to name my only point: wouldn't it be a good defensive programming style _not_ to rely on proven-to-be-unreliable hardware manufacturers. Thing is: you cannot prevent buying bad hardware these days, because just about every manufacturer already sold bad apples ...
Regards, Stephan - 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/
| |