volume management

[Eric Anderson]

On 04/12/07 17:34, Ivan Voras wrote:
> Eric Anderson wrote:
> 
>> Personally, what I would want to prevent, is having a server go down due
>> to one file system having an issue, when it is serving (or using) many
>> more file systems.  I currently have a box with 5 10Tb file systems on
>> it, and when I mount a 6th file system (2Tb) which I *know* has metadata
>> inconsistencies that fsck can't fix, I don't want it to take down all
>> 50Tb of good solid storage.  
> 
> This is slightly off-topic, but this is one of the reasons full
> virtualisation is used. If your kernel panics inside a VM, it's
> expendable :)


I'm not sure that makes a lot of sense.  Honestly, it's not efficient to 
have a single virtual system for each mount point/file system, because 
of the overhead.  You lose a lot doing that, and only gain the 
protection of a trapped panic inside a virtualized host.

At least one major commercial file system vendor that I have a lot of 
direct experience with ejects the filesystem from the system if it 
incurs a serious issue, and returns i/o errors.  Truthfully, it's *FAR* 
better than having the kernel panic and taking out the whole system.

This conversation is really a -fs@ discussion, maybe we should move it 
there?

Eric