Paul Clements wrote: > Michael Tokarev wrote: [] >>>> There's no such parameter currently. But there was several discussions >>>> about how to make raid code more robust - in particular, in case of >>>> read error, raid code may keep the errored drive in the array and mark >>>> it dirty only in case of write error. >>>> >>> That would be nice. Do you know if anyone has done any work toward >>> such a fix? >> >> Looks like this is a "FAQ #1" candidate for linux softraid ;) >> I tried to do just that myself, with a help from Peter T. Breuer. >> The code even worked here on a test machine for some time. >> But it's umm.. quite a bit ugly, and Neil is going to slightly >> different direction (which I for one don't like much - the >> persistent bitmaps stuff, -- I think simpler approach is better). > > The persistent bitmap code has got nothing to do with read/write error > correction. The bitmap simply keeps track of what's out of sync between > the component drives, so you never need a full resync. On the other > hand, read/write error correction tries to limit the conditions under > which a drive would be kicked out of an array (thus resulting in a > resync). Ultimately, I think we'd like to see both capabilities in md, > though... The two features are sorta independant from each other, but if I understand Neil correctly, he wants to implement "robust raid" (not kicking drive on the first error etc) "on top" of the bitmap code (which somehow makes sense ofcourse). /mjt - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
