Hello Russell
On 18 Apr 2003 at 17:26, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2003 18:48, I. Forbes wrote:
> > Do you think there would be any benefit gained from "burning in" a
> > new drive, perhaps by running "fsck -c -c", in order to find marginal
> > blocks and get them mapped out before th
On Thu, 17 Apr 2003 18:48, I. Forbes wrote:
> Am I correct in assuming that every time a "bad block" is discovered
> and remapped on a software raid1 system:
>
> - there is some data loss
I believe that if drive-0 in the array returns a read error then the data is
read from drive-1 and there is n
Hello Russell
On 15 Apr 2003 at 20:21, Russell Coker wrote:
> If you do a write and something goes wrong then the data will be re-mapped.
> I
> don't know how many (if any) drives do "read after write" verification. If
> they don't then it's likely that an error will only be discovered some
On Tuesday 15 April 2003 11:45, I. Forbes wrote:
> Hello All
>
> I have had a number of cases with disk's reporting as "failed" on
> systems with IDE drives in software RAID 1 configuration.
>
> I suppose the good news is you can change the drive with minimal
> downtime and no loss of data. But som
On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 19:45, I. Forbes wrote:
> As far as I know, with modern IDE drives the formated drive includes
> spare blocks and the drive firmware will automatically re-map the drive
> to replace bad blocks with ones from the spare space. This all
> happens transparently without any feedback
Hello All
I have had a number of cases with disk's reporting as "failed" on
systems with IDE drives in software RAID 1 configuration.
I suppose the good news is you can change the drive with minimal
downtime and no loss of data. But some of my customers are
querying the apparent high failure r
6 matches
Mail list logo
