[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:0.264 / U:0.032 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site