EF> Some comments as I probably count as one of the larger WAPBL consumers EF> (we have ~150 employee's Home and Mail on NFS on FFS2+WAPBL on RAIDframe EF> on SAS): JD> I've not changed the code in RF to pass the cache flags, so the patch JD> doesn't actually enable FUA there. Mainly because disks come and go JD> and I'm not aware of mechanism to make WAPBL aware of such changes. It TLS> I ran into this issue with tls-maxphys and got so frustrated I was TLS> actually considering simply panicing if a less-capable disk were used TLS> to replace a more-capable one. Oops. What did you do in the end? What does Mr. RAIDframe say?
My (probably simplistic) idea would be to add a capabilities option to the configuration file, and just as you can't add a disc with insufficient capacity, you can't add one with insufficient capabilities. Of course, greater capabilities are to be ignored just as a larger capacity is.
