yeah for a 'fast' solution moving from one file system to another that
works with theses checks can help you, while we check if this is
usefull or not
IMHO, if we implement this, we should implement outside any today raid
levels, this should be done between device and filesystem, in others
words:
we should implement this to work like:
DISKS - (OUR NEW SILENT ERROR SECURITY SYSTEM LEVEL, 1 PER DEVICE) -
TODAY RAID LEVELS - FILESYSTEMS
or
DISKS - RAIDS LEVELS - (OUR NEW SILENT ERROR SECURITY SYSTEM LEVEL, 1
PER DEVICE) - FILESYSTEM
or
DISK - (OUR NEW SILENT ERROR SECURITY SYSTEM LEVEL, 1 PER DEVICE) - FILESYSTEM
using this, we "could give more security" to usb pendrives for
example, and any block device (network block device, DRBD, or anyother
block device in linux)
2012/7/20 Jaromir Capik [off-list ref]:
quoted
it's not normal to lost data but it's possible (electronic problems,
radioactive problems or another problem not related maybe lost of disk
magnetic properties)
It might be also caused by a bug in the SATA controller driver.
And nobody can be sure that there will be no new issues in case
of future chipsets and their very first driver versions.
quoted
since we are at block device layer (md) i don't know if we
could/should implement a recovery algorithm or just a badblock report
algorithm (checksum)
Direct recovery would be better since it doesn't cost much and lowers
the possibility of data loss due to the second drive's failure.
quoted
maybe for a 'fast' solution you could use raid5 or raid6? while we
discuss if this could/should/will not be implemented?!
i think raid5/6 have checksums and others tools to get this type of
problem while you can use your normal filesystem (ext3? ext4? reiser?
xfs?) or direct the block device (a oracle database for example or
mysql innodb)
RAID5/6 would need more drives than I actually have, right? There's
not enough space for 3 drives in those small and cheap mini-ITX based home
routers/servers I started building 3 years ago. Moreover that would mean
a need for better cooling and a higher power consumption and that's
something I'm exactly trying to avoid in this particular case.
I slowly started to accept the idea, that I'll have to migrate my
systems from mdraid to btrfs if there's no solution soon :( I don't
like it much, but there's apparently nothing else I can do about that.
quoted
--
Roberto Spadim
Spadim Technology / SPAEmpresarial
Thanks a lot for your answers and have a nice day.
Regards,
Jaromir.
--
Jaromir Capik
Red Hat Czech, s.r.o.
Software Engineer / BaseOS
Email: jcapik@redhat.com
Web: www.cz.redhat.com
Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkynova 99/71, 612 45, Brno, Czech Republic
IC: 27690016
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
Roberto Spadim
Spadim Technology / SPAEmpresarial