>Received: from mobile.sauter-bc.com (unknown [10.1.6.21])
	by basel1.sauter-bc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id C24B357306; Fri, 29 Jun 2001 09:30:12 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ch.sauter-bc.com (support.cad.sba [10.1.200.117])
	by mobile.sauter-bc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 68F2B25835; Fri, 29 Jun 2001 09:38:23 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <3B3C2D80.C0209A42@ch.sauter-bc.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 09:25:52 +0200
From: Simon Matter <simon.matter@ch.sauter-bc.com>
Organization: Sauter AG, Basel
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [de] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.19-6.2.7 i686)
X-Accept-Language: de-CH, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andrew Klaassen <ak@dkp.com>
Cc: linux-xfs <linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: XFS corruption on SoftRAID5
References: <3B3B6A45.3252B37C@ch.sauter-bc.com> <3B3BC18C.FF7C9E2E@ieee.org> <20010628194627.A8778@dkp.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com
Precedence: bulk

Andrew Klaassen schrieb:
> 
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 07:45:16PM -0400,
> Bryan J. Smith wrote:
> 
> > I thought the whole 2.4 kernel and software RAID-5 was not
> > recommended, no matter what fs you use?
> 
> Hmm.  I hope not - we've just deployed 300G of IDE drive (using
> an onboard controller, no less) on a box running
> 2.4.2-SGI_XFS_1.0.1_PR1 over software RAID 5, and plan to deploy
> 300G more once we've had a chance to tweak and tune and further
> stress test the second box.  Other than the highmem bug - which
> showed up in testing on the second box, and hasn't yet affected
> the first - we haven't experienced any difficulties.
> 
> Should we expect some?
Okay, I'm using SoftRAID5 on Linux for years now on servers with many
hundred days of uptime and I have not seen any problem, until now.

And, it's not XFS related, it happens with ext2 as well. I'm still
trying to find out what's goning wrong here.

Simon
> 
> Are there some kernel mailing list threads I might want to take
> a look at before I dig myself in too deep?
> 
> Andrew Klaassen