| To: | linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: XFS Resiliency to the disk errors. |
| From: | Martin Steigerwald <Martin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sat, 7 Apr 2007 22:47:37 +0200 |
| In-reply-to: | <A63C579E7F04E74588517328EF5A385E02076A9A@ILEX5.IL.NDS.COM> |
| References: | <A63C579E7F04E74588517328EF5A385E02076A9A@ILEX5.IL.NDS.COM> (sfid-20070405_112347_743716_6E82B98E) (sfid-20070405_112347_743716_6E82B98E) (sfid-20070405_112347_743716_6E82B98E) |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | KMail/1.9.6 |
Am Donnerstag 05 April 2007 schrieb Zak, Semion: > Hi, > > We are studying possibility to use XFS with cheap (not too reliable) > discs, so we have some questions: Hi Semion! I recommend at least monitoring the health status of the drives using smartmontools - with regular short and long selft test - or a similar mechanism. So you *may* at least be warned *before* a disk fails. Otherwise I would go for a redundant RAID array at least so that at least one drive in a bunch of drives can fail without data loss. Regards, -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7 |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Strange delete performance using XFS, Peter Grandi |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Interface for the new fallocate() system call, Paul Mackerras |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: XFS Resiliency to the disk errors., Peter Grandi |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Interface for the new fallocate() system call, Amit K. Arora |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |