> it > *might* make sense to look at ceph or some other distributed > filesystem. I was trying to avoid that, mainly because that doesn't seem to be as supported as a more straightforward raids+lvm2 scenario. But I might be willing to reconsider my position in light of such data losses. > no filesystem I know handles that without either going > readonly, or totally locking up. Which, to be fair, is exactly what I'm looking for. I'd rather see the filesystem lock itself up, until a human tries to restore the failed raid back online. But my recent experience and experiments show me that the filesystems actually don't lock themselves up, and don't go read only for quite some time, and heavy heavy data corruption will then happen. I'd be much more happy if the behavior was that the filesystem locks itself up instead of self destroying over time. -- 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
