Re: feature suggestion to handle read errors during re-sync of raid5

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Asdo <asdo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> John Robinson wrote:
>> On 30/01/2010 21:33, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>> [...]
>>> I think the 4k sector size on WD20EARS (for instance) is supposed
>>> to add more ECC information but I'm not sure how this will affect
>>> the 10^14 error rate.
>>
>> iirc part of the point of moving to 4K sectors is to improve the
>> error correction to something like 1 in 10^20 or 22 without losing
>> storage density, partly by using what was lost before in
>> inter-sector gaps and partly because you can do better with more
>> bits of ECC over more data.
> I remember the other way around: the purpose of 4k was to keep the
> same error rate while saving storage space

I thought the purpose of 4k was to reduce the number of blocks so the
wear leveling has to handle less data.

MfG
        Goswin
--
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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux RAID Wiki]     [ATA RAID]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Linux Block]     [Linux IDE]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux Hams]     [Device Mapper]     [Device Mapper Cryptographics]     [Kernel]     [Linux Admin]     [Linux Net]     [GFS]     [RPM]     [git]     [Yosemite Forum]


  Powered by Linux