On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 09:42:34PM -0300, Carlos Carvalho wrote:
> CaT (cat@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote on 17 April 2006 10:25:
> >Not necessarily. You probably have something like (say) 200GB of data
> >stripes across that disk. That one read error may affect just one or a
> >few which means there's a whole buttload of data that could be retrieved
> >still. Perhaps setting the entire raid array read-only on such an error
> >would be better? That makes it a choice between potentially losing
> >everything and having writes and some reads fail as you have a mild
> >stroke trying to get another drive in on things. Put the drive in, let
> >the array do the best it can to restore things, fail the bad drive, put
> >another disk in, have it come up fully and the fsck it good.
>
> You want the array to stay on and jump here and there getting the
> stripes from wherever it can, each time from a different set of disks.
> That's surely nice but I think it's too much to ask...
That would be nice but even just setting it read-only and if it fails a
read done as it normally would it just fails it and moves on. Nothing
special but it might let you recover a vast chunk of your data. Then you
can decide if what is lost is worth crying over. That's still better
then complete data loss.
Hope that makes sense. :)
--
"To the extent that we overreact, we proffer the terrorists the
greatest tribute."
- High Court Judge Michael Kirby
-
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
