On Fri, 2007-02-02 at 14:42 +0000, Alan wrote: > > The interesting point of this question is about the typically pattern of > > IO errors. On a read, it is safe to assume that you will have issues > > with some bounded numbers of adjacent sectors. > > Which in theory you can get by asking the drive for the real sector size > from the ATA7 info. (We ought to dig this out more as its relevant for > partition layout too). > > > I really like the idea of being able to set this kind of policy on a per > > drive instance since what you want here will change depending on what > > your system requirements are, what the system is trying to do (i.e., > > when trying to recover a failing but not dead yet disk, IO errors should > > be as quick as possible and we should choose an IO scheduler that does > > not combine IO's). > > That seems to be arguing for a bounded "live" time including retry run > time for a command. That's also more intuitive for real time work and for > end user setup. "Either work or fail within n seconds" Actually, then I think perhaps we use the allowed retries for this ... So you would fail a single sector and count it against the retries. When you've done this allowed retries times, you fail the rest of the request. James - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
