Linux-kernel mailing list archive 2000-15,: Re: EXT2 and BadBlock updating.....

# Re: EXT2 and BadBlock updating.....

Eric Youngdale (eric@andante.org)
Wed, 12 Apr 2000 13:06:17 -0400

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: Asynch I/O overloaded 2.2.15/2.3.99"
- Previous message: Rickard Lind: "Non-standdard HZ values (patch)"
- Maybe in reply to: Andre Hedrick: "EXT2 and BadBlock updating....."
- Next in thread: Theodore Y. Ts'o: "Re: EXT2 and BadBlock updating....."

----- Original Message -----
From: Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org>
To: Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@MIT.EDU>
Cc: Stephen C. Tweedie <sct@redhat.com>; Alan Cox
<alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>; <linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu>; Theodore Ts'o
<tytso@valinux.com>; Eric Youngdale <eric@andante.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2000 3:31 AM
Subject: Re: EXT2 and BadBlock updating.....

> On Wed, 12 Apr 2000, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
>
> > Some kind of method where the block device layer can notify the
> > filesystem of specifically which blocks went bad would be useful,
> > probably as a callback. Actually, it's already the case that the
>
> Good, this proves that I am not MAD or you are also ;-)

Yes, a callback would be simple, at least from the block device driver
itself. The real work is in figuring out what the filesystem would do with
the information.

> > And it still doesn't change my contention that somoene who wants
> > ultrareliability, and what you call "Enterprise class" computing,
> > without doing RAID, is fundamentally insane. There are things we can do
> > to try to recover in the face of broken hardware --- but fundamentally,
> > cheap sh*t hardware is still cheap sh*t hardware. You don't make
> > Enterprise class computers out of cheap sh*t. It just doesn't happen.

True enough, but that won't stop people from trying and then whining
when it fails :-).

> SCSI right now under Linux gets its doors blown off only in large
> continuous file copys or transfers. However, SCSI stomps ATA on random,
> for now......... Since 90% of IO is "random access", you win for now.
> But the quality and reliabity, you should enjoy crow on wheat or rye?

Do you know why it is the case that large continuous transfers have this
problem? What kernel versions, which host adapter, and what are you
comparing against (ATA, I assume)?

-Eric

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

- Next message: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: Asynch I/O overloaded 2.2.15/2.3.99"
- Previous message: Rickard Lind: "Non-standdard HZ values (patch)"
- Maybe in reply to: Andre Hedrick: "EXT2 and BadBlock updating....."
- Next in thread: Theodore Y. Ts'o: "Re: EXT2 and BadBlock updating....."