On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 04:14:44PM +1100, Neil Brown wrote: > > This whole discussion simply shows that for RAID-1 software RAID is less > > reliable than hardware RAID (no, I don't mean fake-RAID), because it > > doesn't pin the data buffer until all copies are written. > > That doesn't make it less reliable. It just makes it more confusing. I agree that linux software RAID is no less reliable than hardware RAID with regards to the above conversation. It's however confusing to have a counter that indicates there are problems with a RAID 1 array when in fact there is not. I (and I'm sure others) value your expertise on this matter, but it's hard to feel at ease when the car you're driving across the country has the check engine light on. In this case, I believe the mechanic when you say the car is okay, but it might be difficult for others to believe as I do. I rely heavily on software RAID as I'm sure many others are. I believe this is quite evident in the amount of email that has been circulated about the mismatch_cnt "problem". IMO, a users perception of reliability is really the root of the problem in this case. No one who depends on this stuff wants to see weakness. Those who do are going to be concerned. Especially those who are running distributions such as RedHat/Fedora that do weekly checks on the arrays. Neil, you had mentioned some time ago that you were going to create a patch that would show where the mismatches were located on disk. Did you do this and if so where can I find the patch? Bryan
Attachment:
pgpurw90LPAVK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
