> You should note that the drive won't know a sector it just wrote is > bad until it reads it Yes, but it also won't halt the write for 40 seconds because it was bad. More to the point, there is no difference at the drive level between a bad sector written for a 30Gb file and a 30 byte file. > ....are you sure you actually successfully wrote all of that data and that >it is still there? Pretty sure, yeah. There are no errors in the filesystem, and every file I have written works. Again, however, the point is there is never a problem once the file is created, no matter how long it takes to write it out to disk. The moment the file is created, however, there may be up to a 2 minute delay in writing its data to the drive. > And it is not the writes that kill when you have a drive going bad, it > is the reads of the bad sectors. And to create a file, a number of > things will likely need to be read to finish the file creation, and if > one of those is a bad sector things get ugly. Well, I agree to some extent, except that why would it be loosely related to the volume of drive activity, and why is it 5 drives stop reading altogether and 5 do not? Furthermore, every single video file gets read, re-written, edited, re-written again, and finally read again at least once, sometimes several times, before being finally archived. Why does the kernel log never report any errors of any sort? -- 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
