[lkml]   [2009]   [Aug]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers

    > The other thing about this thread is that the only RAID implementation
    > that is being discussed here is the MD RAID stack. There are a lot of
    > RAID implementations that have the same issues:
    > - motherboard (aka "fake") RAID - In Linux this is typically mapped with
    > device mapper via dmraid; AFAIK there is not a tool to scrub (or even
    > monitor the status of and notify on failure) a Linux DM RAID setup.
    > - hardware RAID cards without battery backup - these have the exact same
    > issues because they cannot guarantee all writes complete, nor can they
    > keep track of incomplete writes across power failures
    > - hardware RAID cards _with_ battery backup but that don't periodically
    > test the battery and have a way to notify you of battery failure while
    > Linux is running
    > The issues being raised here are not specific to extX, MD RAID, or Linux
    > at all; they are problems with non-"enterprise-class" RAID setups.
    > There's a reason enterprise-class RAID costs a lot more money than the
    > card you can pick up at Fry's.
    > There's no reason to document the design issues of general RAID
    > implementations in the Linux kernel.

    Even when we carry one of those misdesigned implementations in-tree?
    (Note that fixed implementations do exist -- AIX? -- just add journal).

    'I wont't tell you that this pony bites, because many ponies do bite'?

    WTF? I thought we had higher moral standard than this.


    (cesky, pictures)

     \ /
      Last update: 2009-08-27 23:53    [W:0.020 / U:1.724 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site