[email protected] wrote:
Would this just be relevant to network devices or would it improve
support for jostled usb and sata hot-plugging I wonder?
good question, I suspect that some of the error handling would be
similar (for devices that are unreachable not haning the system for
example), but a lot of the rest would be different (do you really want
to try to auto-resync to a drive that you _think_ just reappeared,
Well, omit 'think' and the answer may be "yes". A lot of systems are quite
simple and RAID is common on the desktop now. If jostled USB fits into this
category - then "yes".
what
if it's a different drive? how can you be sure?
And that's the key isn't it. We have the RAID device UUID and the superblock
info. Isn't that enough? If not then given the work involved an extended
superblock wouldn't be unreasonable.
And I suspect the capability of devices would need recording in the superblock
too? eg 'retry-on-fail'
I can see how md would fail a device but may now periodically retry it. If a
retry shows that it's back then it would validate it (UUID) and then resync it.
) the error rate of a
network is gong to be significantly higher then for USB or SATA drives
(although I suppose iscsi would be limilar)
I do agree - I was looking for value-add for the existing subsystem. If this
benefits existing RAID users then it's more likely to be attractive.
David
-
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]
