On 14/07/17 01:32, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 14.07.2017 um 00:34 schrieb Gionatan Danti:
Il 13-07-2017 23:34 Reindl Harald ha scritto:
maybe because the disk is, well, not in a good shape and don't know
that by itself
But the kernel *does* know that, as the dmesg entries clearly show.
Basically, some SATA commands timed-out and/or were aborted. As the
kernel reported these erros in dmesg, why do not use these information
to stop a failing disk?
because you won't be that happy when the kernel spits out a disk each
time a random SATA command times out - the 4 RAID10 disks on my
workstation are from 2011 and showed them too several times in the past
while they are just fine
Except, in the context of this thread, the alternative is CORRUPTED
DATA. I certainly know which one I would prefer, and that is a crashed
array!
If a *write* fails, then a failed array may well be the least of the
user's problems - and silent failure merely makes matters worse!
I know, the problem is that linux isn't actually that good at
propagating errors back to user space, and I believe that's a fault of
POSIX. So fixing the problem might be a massive job - indeed I think it is.
But that's no excuse for mocking someone just because they want to be
told that the system has just gone and lost their work for them ...
Oh - and isn't that what raid is *supposed* to do? Kick a disk on a
write failure?
Cheers,
Wol
--
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
