On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 19:55 -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 16:46 -0500, Alberto Alonso wrote:
Regardless of the fact that it is not MD's fault, it does make
software raid an invalid choice when combined with those drivers. A
single disk failure within a RAID5 array
On Sat, Oct 27, 2007 at 04:47:30PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 09:50 +0200, Luca Berra wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 03:26:33PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 11:15 +0200, Luca Berra wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 02:40:06AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
On Sat, Oct 27, 2007 at 04:09:03PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 10:00 +0200, Luca Berra wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 02:52:59PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 11:54 +0200, Luca Berra wrote:
On Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 09:11:57AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
On Sat, Oct 27, 2007 at 08:26:00PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 00:30 +0200, Gabor Gombas wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 02:52:59PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
In fact, no you can't. I know, because I've created a device that had
both but wasn't a raid device. And it's
On Sun, 2007-10-28 at 15:13 +0100, Luca Berra wrote:
On Sat, Oct 27, 2007 at 08:26:00PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 00:30 +0200, Gabor Gombas wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 02:52:59PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
In fact, no you can't. I know, because I've created a
On Sun, 2007-10-28 at 14:37 +0100, Luca Berra wrote:
On Sat, Oct 27, 2007 at 04:47:30PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
Most of the time it does. But those times where it can fail, the
failure is due to not taking the precautions necessary to prevent it:
aka labeling disk usage via some sort of
Doug Ledford wrote:
On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 11:15 +0200, Luca Berra wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 02:40:06AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
The partition table is the single, (mostly) universally recognized
arbiter of what possible data might be on the disk. Having a partition
table may
Doug Ledford wrote:
On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 14:41 -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
Actually, after doing some research, here's what I've found:
I should note that both the lvm code and raid code are simplistic at the
moment. For example, the raid5 mapping only supports the default raid5
Doug Ledford wrote:
Anyway, I happen to *like* the idea of using full disk devices, but the
reality is that the md subsystem doesn't have exclusive ownership of the
disks at all times, and without that it really needs to stake a claim on
the space instead of leaving things to chance IMO.
I've
