xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS corruption on SoftRAID5

To: "Martin K. Petersen" <mkp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: XFS corruption on SoftRAID5
From: Simon Matter <simon.matter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 19:02:24 +0200
>received: from mobile.sauter-bc.com (unknown [10.1.6.21]) by basel1.sauter-bc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D02D857306; Fri, 29 Jun 2001 19:11:05 +0200 (CEST)
Cc: linux-xfs <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: Sauter AG, Basel
References: <200106282148.f5SLmfw24451@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4.3.2.7.2.20010629090815.02e71aa8@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <3B3C3C56.73D1C11C@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <yq1bsn745ex.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
"Martin K. Petersen" schrieb:
> 
> >>>>> "Simon" == Simon Matter <simon.matter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> Simon> You're right. But on this list we have all those people using
> Simon> big disks and raid volumes. So if the problem was somehow
> Simon> XFS/SoftRAID related, where could I ask.
> 
> It is perfectly fine to ask questions like that here.
> 
> FWIW, almost all the XFS corruption bugs (with RAID or otherwise) I've
> seen so far have been incorrect IDE hdparm tuning or bad cabling.

That's the problem, I guess. The RH tuned 2.4 kernels (I didn't test
linus kernels) do IDE tuning without using hdparm. I can say the Promise
controller performs very good. With a RAID0 on all four disks I get mor
than 120MB/sec throughput (yes, the file is big enough to not use
caching). It's was also very fast on i820 chipset but it seems not to be
reliable. FYI I didn't touch hdparm. I'm just giving up on using
multiple IDE disks with kernel 2.4. Sad but no choice.

> 
> --
> Martin K. Petersen, Principal Linux Consultant, Linuxcare, Inc.
> mkp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, http://www.linuxcare.com/
> SGI XFS for Linux Developer, http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>