| To: | "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | RE: xfs data loss |
| From: | "Passerone, Daniele" <Daniele.Passerone@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sat, 29 Aug 2009 22:03:35 +0200 |
| Accept-language: | it-IT, de-CH |
| Acceptlanguage: | it-IT, de-CH |
| In-reply-to: | <4A981133.6060009@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <B9A7B002C7FAFC469D4229539E909760308DA651DE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4A975A35.3060809@xxxxxxxxxxx> <B9A7B002C7FAFC469D4229539E909760308DA65345@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4A981133.6060009@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Thread-index: | AcooA3SC8DG5+cSzQ/WrnNCXoFSl1QA31jIA |
| Thread-topic: | xfs data loss |
I would like to ask mr. Peter Grandi, whether it is really necessary to delivery ist vaste knowledge in such a harsh way. Is this the habit of this mailing list? Apart from that, thank you for you help. I understand that RAID5 is not the ideal solution for that system, and I admit that in the urgence of solving the /md4 problem I miswrote the problem of /md6, which of course was "erased" and not "repaired". But apart from that, it is not as easy to backup 20 TB, so we decided to set it as data storage leaving the responsibilty of the backup to our users. I do not consider it completely absurd. Moreover, when a raid loses 2 devices, and the devices are still ok, it is possible to reassemble the raid by assuming the devices clean. This is not the case for /Raid/md4, where apparently all devices are there. THanks, Daniele |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | zero size file after power failure with kernel 2.6.30.5, Michael Monnerie |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: zero size file after power failure with kernel 2.6.30.5, Eric Sandeen |
| Previous by Thread: | RE: xfs data loss, Passerone, Daniele |
| Next by Thread: | Re: xfs data loss, Michael Monnerie |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |