From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alan Subject: Re: end to end error recovery musings Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 17:01:18 +0000 Message-ID: <20070226170118.54371f1e@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> References: <45DEF6EF.3020509@emc.com> <45DF80C9.5080606@zytor.com> <20070224003723.GS10715@schatzie.adilger.int> <20070224023229.GB4380@thunk.org> <17890.28977.989203.938339@notabene.brown> <20070226132511.GB8154@thunk.org> <20070226151507.13a1701e@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <45E2FA3E.3040201@emc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <45E2FA3E.3040201@emc.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org To: ric@emc.com Cc: Theodore Tso , Neil Brown , "H. Peter Anvin" , Linux-ide , linux-scsi , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, Tejun Heo , James Bottomley , Mark Lord , Jens Axboe , "Clark, Nathan" , "Singh, Arvinder" , "De Smet, Jochen" , "Farmer, Matt" , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, "Mizar, Sunita" List-Id: linux-raid.ids > I think that this is mostly true, but we also need to balance this against the > need for higher levels to get a timely response. In a really large IO, a naive > retry of a very large write could lead to a non-responsive system for a very > large time... And losing the I/O could result in a system that is non responsive until the tape restore completes two days later....