Re: RAID timeout parameter accessibility request

[Jose de la Mancha]

Thanks guys for your answers (please remember to keep CCing me).

Robert Hancock wrote:
> This always seemed a strange use case to me. If the drive is getting
> read errors, either it's dying and needs to be replaced, or it has a
> sporadic bad sector as a result of a power failure during write, etc. in
> which case the drive should be resynchronized. In either case the drive
> should be dropped from the array and require manual intervention. It
> doesn't seem logical to me to just read the data from another drive and
> carry on in our merry way without any warning.

--> A warning message is OK, but dropping the drive from the array is
excessive IMHO. And anyway, this should be user-configurable, so that it
becomes each user's responsibility to choose if the drive shall be dropped
or not. Currently we don't have any choice.

Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> Not sure about Debian, but perhaps /sys/block/md0/md/safe_mode_delay
> does something?

--> I'll check that out. Does someone know about how this "safe mode delay"
works ?

Thanasis wrote:
> WD 2500YS
> price same as an IDE or SATA

--> All RAID edition drives are more expensive that their equivalent
"desktop edition" drives (same model on "desktop edition"). Just take a look
at newegg for instance. Besides, trying to find an affordable "RAID edition"
model is not a solution to this technical timeout issue, just a workaraound
(a bad one IMHO). Thanks anyway.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/