[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Grandi) writes: > ms> I just want to give another suggestion. It may or may not be > ms> possible to repair inconsistent arrays but in either way some > ms> code there MUST at least warn the administrator that > ms> something (may) went wrong. > > tn> Agreed. > > That sounds instead quite extraordinary to me because it is not > clear how to define ''inconsistency'' in the general case never > mind detect it reliably, and never mind knowing when it is found > how to determine which are the good data bits and which are the > bad.
I don't quite follow you. Having a basic consistency check utility for a raid array is to me as obvious as having an fsck utility for a file system. > Now I am starting to think that this discussion is based on the > curious assumption that storage subsystems should solve the so > called ''byzantine generals'' problem, that is to operate reliably > in the presence of unreliable communications and storage. I don't think anyone is proposing to solve that problem. However, an occasional slight nod in acknowledgment of the fact that real world communications and storage *are* unreliable wouldn't be out of place. -- Leif Nixon - Systems expert ------------------------------------------------------------ National Supercomputer Centre - Linkoping University ------------------------------------------------------------ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
