On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 12:56:44PM +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Monday June 18, [email protected] wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 07:59:29AM +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
> > > Combining these thoughts, it would make a lot of sense for the
> > > filesystem to be able to say to the block device "That blocks looks
> > > wrong - can you find me another copy to try?". That is an example of
> > > the sort of closer integration between filesystem and RAID that would
> > > make sense.
> >
> > I think that this would only be useful on devices that store
> > discrete copies of the blocks on different devices i.e. mirrors. If
> > it's an XOR based RAID, you don't have another copy you can
> > retreive....
>
> You could reconstruct the block in question from all the other blocks
> (including parity) and see if that differs from the data block read
> from disk... For RAID6, there would be a number of different ways to
> calculate alternate blocks. Not convinced that it is actually
> something we want to do, but it is a possibility.
Agreed - it's not as straight forward as a mirror, and it kind of assumes
that you have software RAID.
/me had his head stuck in hw raid land ;)
> I have that - apparently naive - idea that drives use strong checksum,
> and will never return bad data, only good data or an error. If this
> isn't right, then it would really help to understand what the cause of
> other failures are before working out how to handle them....
The drive is not the only source of errors, though. You could
have a path problem that is corrupting random bits between the drive
and the filesystem. So the data on the disk might be fine, and
reading it via a redundant path might be all that is needed.
Yeah, so I can see how having a different retry semantic would be a
good idea. i.e. if we do a READ_VERIFY I/O, the underlying device
attempts to verify the data is good in as many ways as possible
before returning the verified data or an error.
I guess a filesystem read would become something like this:
verified = 0
error = read(block)
if (error) {
read_verify:
error = read_verify(block)
if (error) {
OMG THE SKY IS FALLING
return error
}
verified = 1
}
/* check contents */
if (contents are bad) {
if (!verified)
goto read_verify
OMG THE SKY HAS FALLEN
return -EIO
}
Is this the sort of erro handling and re-issuing of
I/O that you had in mind?
FWIW, I don't think this really removes the need for a filesystem to
be able to keep multiple copies of stuff about. If the copy(s) on a
device are gone, you've still got to have another copy somewhere
else to get it back...
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
Principal Engineer
SGI Australian Software Group
-
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]
