On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 11:48:52AM +0100, Kiniger wrote: ... > some random thoughts: > > nowadays hardware sector sizes are much bigger than 512 bytes
No :) > and > the read error may affect some sectors +- the sector which actually > returned the error. That's right > > to keep the handling in userspace as much as possible: > > the real problem is the long resync time. therefore it would > be sufficient to have a concept of "defective areas" per partition > and drive (a few of them, perhaps four or so , would be enough) > which will be excluded from reads/writes and some means to > re-synchronize these "defective areas" from the good counterparts > of the other disk. This would avoid having the whole partition being > marked as defective. I wonder if it's really worth it. The original idea has some merit I think - but what you're suggesting here is almost "bad block remapping" with transparent recovery and user space policy agents etc. etc. If a drive has problems reading the platter, it can usually be corrected by overwriting the given sector (either the drive can actually overwrite the sector in place, or it will re-allocate it with severe read performance penalties following). But there's a reason why that sector went bad, and you realy want to get the disk replaced. I think the current policy of marking the disk as failed when it has failed is sensible. Just my 0.02 Euro -- / jakob - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
