Eric Baldeschwieler wrote:
"Tells" is a bit strong! I just asked if this might not be so. I'm
asking folks I know who know more. If anyone on this list does,
please educate me!
I'm trying to get our ops-head Joerg to chime in. He has experience in
this regard.
Regards the broader picture, I've not had checksum errors over the last
3 to 4 days so have not had a chance to see what happens if the bad file
is left in place (I've been running of late on what remains of my rack
after a burnin using http://sourceforge.net/projects/va-ctcs/. It found
a bunch of issues -- particularly with RAM -- with our
less-than-top-of-the-line "commodity PCs". The rack has temporarily
been reduced to half-strength. But now I'm making progress on jobs --
no more ChecksumErrors, at least for the time being).
Thanks,
St.Ack
e14
On Apr 14, 2006, at 9:19 AM, Doug Cutting wrote:
Michael Stack wrote:
Doug Cutting wrote:
In your case I don't think moving the files is helping at all,
since the checksum errors are not caused by bad disk blocks, but
rather by memory errors. So not moving is fine. Maybe we should
add a config parameter to disable moving on checksum error?
Let me try this. Should probably subsume the
'io.skip.checksum.errors' parameter.
Eric Baldeschwieler tells me that most disks now automatically remap
bad sectors (I didn't think IDE drives did this, but it seems they do
now). So we shouldn't need to move the files at all.
How did things work when you disabled moving of files?
Doug
