[8160] in linux-scsi channel archive
Re: recovery behaviour with 1 bad + 1 good drive (aic7xxx)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alan Cox)
Tue Feb 22 18:32:10 2000
To: dwguest@win.tue.nl (Guest section DW)
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 20:59:45 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox),
ma@dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de (Matthias Andree),
linux-scsi@vger.rutgers.edu
In-Reply-To: <20000222212936.A1097@win.tue.nl> from "Guest section DW" at Feb 22, 2000 09:29:36 PM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <E12NMPK-0002Y1-00@the-village.bc.nu>
From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
> that the probability that something useful is achieved by a reset
> is larger than the probability that the situation only gets worse.
> I think that bus resets should be initiated by a human only.]
For many server setups Eric is right. In fact with the watchdog code running
and watchdog monitors the step after bus reset is power cycling on its own
For a lot of other cases you are right.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
