Horst von Brand (vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl') writes:
> Ed Carp <erc@pobox.com> said:
>
> [...]
>
> > It must be nice to live in such a perfect world where one can replace disks
> > instantly at the first sign of a problem. Why have such badblock code in the
> > kernel in the first place -- just insist that all your users have error-free
> > drives.
>
> > But out here in the real world we don't have such a luxury. It could be days
> > before a drive can get replaced. In the meantime, we have to make do.
>
> In my experience, once a drive starts showing errors you don't have
> days. You have a few hours of working time left, if you are lucky a
> day. Then the drive (and the data on it) is gone for good. Given that,
> what they are saying (if harsh) is more than reasonable.
My experience has been exactly the opposite. I've got systems that have been
running on drives with bad sectors for, literally, years. One drive that has
periodic bad sectors on it has been running 24x7 for over 3 years.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 15 2000 - 21:00:18 EST