[Top] [All Lists]

xfs data loss

To: "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: xfs data loss
From: "Passerone, Daniele" <Daniele.Passerone@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 00:52:02 +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 
in the urgence of solving the /md4 problem I miswrote the problem of /md6, 
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 
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 
to reassemble the raid by assuming the devices clean.

This is not the case for /Raid/md4, where apparently all devices are there.


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