Re: raid is dangerous but that's secret (was Re: [patch] ext2/3:document conditions when reliable operation is possible)

From: Pavel Machek
Date: Tue Sep 01 2009 - 16:26:31 EST

>> Interesting. So, what's technically wrong with the patch below?
> My suggestion was that you stop trying to document your assertion of an
> issue and actually suggest fixes in code or implementation. I really
> don't think that you have properly diagnosed your specific failure or
> done sufficient. However, if you put a full analysis and suggested code
> out to the MD devel lists, we can debate technical implementation as we
> normally do.

I don't think I should be required to rewrite linux md layer in order
to fix documentation.

> The only note that I would put in ext3/4 etc documentation would be:
> "Reliable storage is important for any file system. Single disks (or
> FLASH or SSD) do fail on a regular basis.

Uh, how clever, instead of documenting that our md raid code does not
always work as expected, you document that components fail. Newspeak

You even failed to mention little design problem with flash and
eraseblock size... and the fact that you don't need flash to fail to
get data loss.

(cesky, pictures)
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at