Jeff Hahn wrote:
>
> >under Linux you can use another partitioning scheme too, BSD
> disklabels.
> >But any nontrivial combination of block ranges needs something like
> >LINEAR. But otherwise i aggree that there might be place for a new RAID
> >level called 'SPLICE' or the ability to partition a
>under Linux you can use another partitioning scheme too, BSD
disklabels.
>But any nontrivial combination of block ranges needs something like
>LINEAR. But otherwise i aggree that there might be place for a new RAID
>level called 'SPLICE' or the ability to partition a RAID device as
well.
>
> Ingo
under Linux you can use another partitioning scheme too, BSD disklabels.
But any nontrivial combination of block ranges needs something like
LINEAR. But otherwise i aggree that there might be place for a new RAID
level called 'SPLICE' or the ability to partition a RAID device as well.
On Sun, 25 Oct 1998, Piete Brooks wrote:
> >> BTW: is there any fundamental reason why MD has to work on whole
> >> partitions, rather than being able to take a range of blocks within a
> >> partition ? Combined with resize2fs, this would make a "really useful"
> >> facility to resize filesyste
On Sun, 25 Oct 1998, Piete Brooks wrote:
> Using 2.1.125 "out of the box", I manually edited MAX_MD_DEV in
> include/linux/md.h to allow more devices -- is there any other way to do
> this?
the newest 0.90 raidtools and driver both deal with this already, the
default is 16 devices and all nami
[ I'm not on the list, so please ensure you reply to me directly,
and feel free to point me at TFM to R ...
]
Using 2.1.125 "out of the box", I manually edited MAX_MD_DEV in
include/linux/md.h to allow more devices -- is there any other way to do this?
Anyway, it all works just fine for the bo
