[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A9C5A7D.8000302@cox.net>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 18:19:25 -0500
From: Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@....net>
To: Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...il.com>
CC: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@...hat.com>,
Linux-Ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: raid is dangerous but that's secret (was Re: [patch] ext2/3:
document conditions when reliable operation is possible)
On 2009-08-31 17:26, Jesse Brandeburg wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 11:07 AM, martin f krafft<madduck@...ian.org> wrote:
>> also sprach Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...il.com> [2009.08.31.1949 +0200]:
>>> In the case of a degraded array, could the kernel be more
>>> proactive (or maybe even mdadm) and have the filesystem remount
>>> itself withOUT journalling enabled? This seems on the surface to
>>> be possible, but I don't know the internal particulars that might
>>> prevent/allow it.
>> Why would I want to disable the filesystem journal in that case?
>
> I misspoke w.r.t journalling, the idea I was trying to get across was
> to remount with -o sync while running on a degraded array, but given
> some of the other comments in this thread I'm not even sure that would
> help. the idea was to make writes as safe as possible (at the cost of
> speed) when running on a degraded array, and to have the transition be
> as hands-free as possible, just have the kernel (or mdadm) by default
> remount.
Much better, I'd think, to "just" have it scream out DANGER!! WILL
ROBINSON!! DANGER!! to syslog and to an email hook.
--
Brawndo's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists