Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:43:13 +0200 From: Bernd Walter <ticso@cicely12.cicely.de> To: Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no> Cc: Max Laier <max@love2party.net>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@freebsd.org>, Pascal Hofstee <caelian@gmail.com> Subject: Re: ZFS kernel panic Message-ID: <20070829104312.GS45279@cicely12.cicely.de> In-Reply-To: <86absa3aaa.fsf@ds4.des.no> References: <20070828211440.470805B3B@mail.bitblocks.com> <200708282324.05834.max@love2party.net> <86absa3aaa.fsf@ds4.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 12:27:57PM +0200, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > Max Laier <max@love2party.net> writes: > > This is complete nonsense! As you pointed out earlier zfs doesn't > > know anything about the nature of the error. There is only one > > sensible way to deal with a disk error - unless it is transient - and > > that is stopping all (write) access to the drive. As you can't easily > > move a mounted drive with opened files into read-only mode, a panic is > > the only way to make sure. > > Actually, remounting the disk read-only upon encountering a write error > is standard behaviour in Linux. And it didn't even tell, but that's another story. Anyway - I prefer the panic unless a better solution is available or possible, like fsync/write error or even better just switch to another block. In case of redundancy however it may be best if the disk is taken completely out of use, since many kind write errors produce highe latencies, which slows down the system. -- B.Walter http://www.bwct.de http://www.fizon.de bernd@bwct.de info@bwct.de support@fizon.de
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070829104312.GS45279>