| To: | Michael Best <mbest@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: XFS bad block recording? |
| From: | Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 5 Sep 2002 00:02:32 -0700 |
| Cc: | linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <3D76F3E9.5090808@emergence.com> |
| References: | <H00000a1000da880.1031164571.pobox@MHS> <1031165125.3056.18.camel@stout.americas.sgi.com> <20020905035940.GC6004@tapu.f00f.org> <3D76F3E9.5090808@emergence.com> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.4i |
On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 12:04:25AM -0600, Michael Best wrote: > Basically even with ext2/ext3, with the drive failing spectacularly, > it's pretty much game over for that drive. For gradual failures or "bad blocks in stasis" it would be nice to have the fs avoid these. > EVMS and LVM may have addressed this issue where the LVM/EVMS layer > is actually handling the physical disks and can reallocate bad > blocks on the fly. Arguably, you shouldn't need to use LVM to deal with bad blocks. Anyhow, this is getting rather OT. If XFS cannot deal with bad-blocks (I'm not talking about failing drives), then that is that and other means are required. --cw |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: XFS bad block recording?, Michael Best |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: XFS bad block recording?, Andi Kleen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: XFS bad block recording?, Michael Best |
| Next by Thread: | Re: XFS bad block recording?, Andi Kleen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |