On Wednesday 15 February 2006 2:16 pm, Doug McNaught wrote:
> Rob Landley <[email protected]> writes:
> > On Wednesday 15 February 2006 1:31 pm, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> >> once.
> >
> > Yup. Apparently with SAS, the controllers are far more likely to fail
> > than the drives.
>
> I think the actual idea (or one of them) is to have two machines
> connected to each drive, in a hot-standby configuration. This has
> been done for a long time with parallel SCSI, where both machines have
> controllers on the bus.
Ah. I'm used to projects doing that through ethernet instead, in various
hand-rolled implementations. A generic solution for staying in sync through
the network would be nice.
A potentially interesting project might be hooking into the journaling stuff
to update a network block device as data gets flushed out of the journal.
It'd need some kind of heartbeat mechanism (if the network block device
doesn't confirm receipt of the data within X seconds, don't hold up flushing
the journal to the filesystem and moving on with life). And some mechanism
to get back in sync after getting out of sync, which could be done a number
of ways.
I wonder if there's already something like this? (Probably...)
> -Doug
Rob
--
Never bet against the cheap plastic solution.
-
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]
