[lkml]   [2009]   [Aug]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 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 <>
>> 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

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-08-30 14:59    [W:0.180 / U:12.572 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site