Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen From: davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware Subject: Re: ISA boards, EISA bus Message-ID: <1970@sixhub.UUCP> Date: 29 Sep 90 22:03:15 GMT References: <1471@gold.GVG.TEK.COM> <1477@gold.GVG.TEK.COM> <5777@holston.UUCP> Reply-To: davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen) Organization: *IX Public Access UNIX, Schenectady NY Lines: 22 In article <5777@holston.UUCP> barton@holston.UUCP (Barton A. Fisk) writes: | The catch is drive failure causes loss of pieces of all files. Compaq | offers several solutions to guard against this including mirroring | and controller duplexing and data guarding. The later being an interesting | approach where the data in a 4 drive array is encoded and placed on | one of the drives (transparent to the user). If a failure occurs, the | defective drive is fixed and the system restores itself. I like this. | Needless to say, I am waiting for my Systempro to arrive. I can see how that would work using any of several schemes, but all of them seem to require not using the other drives until the failed unit is replaced. The simpler solutions also would require that for every bad sector the corresponding sector be marked bad on all srives, although you can get by that if you are willing to put up with the delay caused by mapping every sector on every drive on every access. Use of sector sparing would make the first method easier to live with. -- bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen) sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me