On Fri, 2007-02-02 at 14:42 +0000, Alan wrote:
> > The interesting point of this question is about the typically pattern of
> > IO errors. On a read, it is safe to assume that you will have issues
> > with some bounded numbers of adjacent sectors.
>
> Which in theory you can get by asking the drive for the real sector size
> from the ATA7 info. (We ought to dig this out more as its relevant for
> partition layout too).
>
> > I really like the idea of being able to set this kind of policy on a per
> > drive instance since what you want here will change depending on what
> > your system requirements are, what the system is trying to do (i.e.,
> > when trying to recover a failing but not dead yet disk, IO errors should
> > be as quick as possible and we should choose an IO scheduler that does
> > not combine IO's).
>
> That seems to be arguing for a bounded "live" time including retry run
> time for a command. That's also more intuitive for real time work and for
> end user setup. "Either work or fail within n seconds"
Actually, then I think perhaps we use the allowed retries for this ...
So you would fail a single sector and count it against the retries.
When you've done this allowed retries times, you fail the rest of the
request.
James
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
