| To: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: XFS bad block recording? |
| From: | Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 4 Sep 2002 20:59:40 -0700 |
| Cc: | dbarber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <1031165125.3056.18.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <H00000a1000da880.1031164571.pobox@MHS> <1031165125.3056.18.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.4i |
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 01:45:25PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > The short answer is "no," and the longer answer is that by the time > a modern drive is showing bad blocks to the user, it's a short trip > to the dumpster, IMHO! It's a pretty rotten answer really :) I agree that since most (all?) modern drive transparently remap errors until the 'grown' table (or equivalent) is full that if you see errors your disk is in terrible shape and has been for some time, but it doesn't seem unreasonable for someone to want to mark part of the disk bad and have the fs avoid this. Almost ever other fs I can think of allows this kind of thing. --cw |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: 2.4.19- xfs oops, Dmitry Melekhov |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | TAKE - xfs_aops.c cleanup (contd)., Nathan Scott |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: XFS bad block recording?, Eric Sandeen |
| Next by Thread: | Re: XFS bad block recording?, Michael Best |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |