Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 07:58:53 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=F8ren_Schmidt?= <sos@DeepCore.dk> To: Doug White <dwhite@gumbysoft.com> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: drive failure during rebuild causes page fault Message-ID: <41BE8F2D.8000407@DeepCore.dk> In-Reply-To: <20041213183336.T97507@carver.gumbysoft.com> References: <20041213052628.GB78120@meer.net> <20041213054159.GC78120@meer.net> <20041212215841.X83257@carver.gumbysoft.com> <20041213060549.GE78120@meer.net> <20041213102333.V92964@carver.gumbysoft.com> <20041213192119.GB4781@meer.net> <20041213183336.T97507@carver.gumbysoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Doug White wrote: > On Mon, 13 Dec 2004, Joe Rhett wrote: > > >>>This is why I don't trust ATA RAID for fault tolerance -- it'll save your >>>data, but the system will tank. Since the disk state is maintained by >>>the OS and not abstracted by a separate processor, if a disk dies in a >>>particularly bad way the system may not be able to cope. >> >>Yes, but SATA isn't limited by this problem. It does have a processor per >>disk. (this is all SATA, if I didn't make that clear) > > Actually on SATA its worse -- the disk just stops responding to everything > and hangs. If you don't detect this condition then you go into an > infinite wait. > > In any case, yes the ATA RAID code could use a massive robustness pass. So > could the core ATA code. Patches accepted :) Actually I'm in the process of rewriting the ATA RAID code, so things are rolling, albeit slowly, time is a precious resource. I belive that it can be made pretty robust, but the rest of the kernel still have issues with disappearing devices etc thats out of ATA's realm. Anyhow. I can only test with the HW I have here in the lab, which by far covers all possible permutations, so testing etc by the community is very much needed here to get things sorted out... -- -Søren
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?41BE8F2D.8000407>