From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Feb 5 17:40:59 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0E2016A4CE; Sat, 5 Feb 2005 17:40:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: from troutmask.apl.washington.edu (troutmask.apl.washington.edu [128.208.78.105]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 740C443D2F; Sat, 5 Feb 2005 17:40:59 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu) Received: from troutmask.apl.washington.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) j15Hexi5091401; Sat, 5 Feb 2005 09:40:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu) Received: (from sgk@localhost)j15HexpN091400; Sat, 5 Feb 2005 09:40:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sgk) Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2005 09:40:59 -0800 From: Steve Kargl To: Robert Watson Message-ID: <20050205174059.GA91377@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> References: <20050204192511.GA84359@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: the value of a journal filesystem? X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 17:40:59 -0000 On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 05:30:26PM +0000, Robert Watson wrote: > > On Fri, 4 Feb 2005, Steve Kargl wrote: > > > I'm not sure if this is a ext2fs, ext3fs, or reiserfs, but the 2nd > > paragraph is somewhat ominious. The notice does statement whether the > > damaged filesystems are on other disks or on disks in other machines > > (ie. nfs mounted). > > Journalling, as with Soft Updates, relies on generally correct operation > of the media (i.e., changes are written or not, etc), and is intended to > protect only against "fail stop" failure modes. Handling media failure is > generally a task for RAID arrays, which are intended to mask corruption by > coercing corruption to "fail stop" on the media. So the interesting > question here would be: did their RAID not protect them? Or did they not > have RAID? > >From what I've read, redhat replaced a dead disk in a raid array with a new disk and started a recovery phase. During recovery, the filesystems were corrupted. I have not been able to find any info on what hardware controller redhat uses (or used :). gcc.gnu.org has been down for 72+ hours, which seems like a very long time for such an important site. -- Steve