I have never seen a properly good disk that gets that high of error
rate actually exposed to the OS. I have dealt with >5000 disk for
several years of history on the 5000+ disks.
I have experience with not so many disks, but I was used that they are
quite reliable, and that the first read error reported to OS is symptom
of an incominc failure; I always replaced them in such case, and this is
why I am so amazed that kernel 2.6.15 changed the way it manages read
errors (as also Asdo said, it's ok for raid-6, but unsafe for raid-5, 1,
4, 10).
Actually I had not a single read error since 2-3 years on my systems,
but now ... in a week, I had 4 disk failed (yes... another one since I
started this thread!!) ... it's 30% of the total disks in my systems ...
so I'm really puzzled out ... I don't know what to trust ... I'm just in
the hands of God
Nothing in the error rate indicated that behavior, so if you get a bad
lot it will be very bad, if you don't get a bad lot you very likely
won't have issues. Now including the bad lots data into the overall
error rate, may result in the error rate being that high, but you luck
will depend on if you have a good or bad lot.
My disks are form same manufacturer as size, but different lot, as
bought in different times, and different models.
Systems are well protected by UPS and in different places!
... my unluky week .. or I have a big EM storm over here...
I've recall to duty old 120G disks to save some data.
Cheers
--
Cordiali saluti.
Yours faithfully.
Giovanni Tessore
--
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
