> > The difference between ext3 and XFS is that ext3 will remount to
> > read-only on the first write error but the XFS won't, XFS only fails
> > only the current operation, IMHO. The method of ext3 isn't perfect, but
> > in practice, it's working well.
>
> XFS will shutdown the filesystem if me
On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 03:35:48AM +0200, Pallai Roland wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 10:05 +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> > > >It's a good question too, but I think the md layer could
> > > >save dumb filesystems like XFS if denies writes after 2 disks are
> > > >failed,
> > > >and
> > > >I cann
OK, lets see if I can understand how a disk gets flagged
as bad and removed from an array. I was under the impression
that any read or write operation failure flags the drive as
bad and it gets removed automatically from the array.
However, as I indicated in a prior post I am having problems
where
I believe I've come across a bug in the disk read error recovery logic
for raid1 check/repair operations in 2.6.20. The raid1.c file looks
identical in 2.6.21 so the problem should still exist there as well.
This all surfaced when using a variant of CONFIG_FAIL_MAKE_REQUEST to
inject read errors
On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 10:05 +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 07:20:35AM -0400, Justin Piszcz wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 May 2007, Pallai Roland wrote:
> > >I wondering why the md raid5 does accept writes after 2 disks failed. I've
> > >an
> > >array built from 7 drives, filesystem
On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 07:20:35AM -0400, Justin Piszcz wrote:
> Including XFS mailing list on this one.
Thanks Justin.
> On Thu, 24 May 2007, Pallai Roland wrote:
>
> >
> >Hi,
> >
> >I wondering why the md raid5 does accept writes after 2 disks failed. I've
> >an
> >array built from 7 drives,
Holger Kiehl wrote:
Hello
On Tue, 22 May 2007, Thomas Jager wrote:
Hi list.
I run a file server on MD raid-5.
If a client reads one big file and at the same time another client
tries to write a file, the thread writing just sits in
uninterruptible sleep until the reader has finished. Only v
On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 09:29:04AM +1000, lewis shobbrook wrote:
> I've noted that device allocation can change with the generation of
> new initrd's and installation of new kernels; i.e. /dev/sdc becomes
> /dev/sda depending upon what order the modules load etc.
> I'm wondering if one could send
lewis shobbrook schrieb:
Hi All,
I'm wondering if anyone has discovered any nice tricks to assist in
identification of hdd devices.
I have an 8 bay hotswap array, pretty lights and have been wondering
what others out there might be doing to determine which disk in an
array is which.
Considering
lewis shobbrook wrote:
Also I've not had much joy in attempting to "hotswap" SATA on a live
system.
Can anyone attest to successful hotswap (or blanket rule out as
doesn't work) using std on board SATA controllers, cf dedicated raid
card, or suggest further reading?
I've spent considerable time
lewis shobbrook wrote:
Hi All,
I'm wondering if anyone has discovered any nice tricks to assist in
identification of hdd devices.
I have an 8 bay hotswap array, pretty lights and have been wondering
what others out there might be doing to determine which disk in an
array is which.
I've noted tha
Including XFS mailing list on this one.
On Thu, 24 May 2007, Pallai Roland wrote:
Hi,
I wondering why the md raid5 does accept writes after 2 disks failed. I've an
array built from 7 drives, filesystem is XFS. Yesterday, an IDE cable failed
(my friend kicked it off from the box on the floor:)
Hi,
I wondering why the md raid5 does accept writes after 2 disks failed. I've an
array built from 7 drives, filesystem is XFS. Yesterday, an IDE cable failed
(my friend kicked it off from the box on the floor:) and 2 disks have been
kicked but my download (yafc) not stopped, it tried and cou
13 matches
Mail list logo
