From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 15 16:30:01 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@smarthost.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87DECBB0 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 16:30:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206c::16:87]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 267B63D8 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 16:30:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.6/8.14.6) with ESMTP id r0FGU17j043251 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 16:30:01 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.6/8.14.6/Submit) id r0FGU1EV043249; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 16:30:01 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 16:30:01 GMT Message-Id: <201301151630.r0FGU1EV043249@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: Alexander Motin Subject: Re: bin/166589: atacontrol(8) incorrectly treats RAID10 and 0+1 the same X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: Alexander Motin List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 16:30:01 -0000 The following reply was made to PR bin/166589; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Alexander Motin To: Allen Landsidel Cc: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: bin/166589: atacontrol(8) incorrectly treats RAID10 and 0+1 the same Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 18:25:14 +0200 At what point have we talked about hardware RAID controllers? ataraid(8) never controller hardware RAID controllers, but only Soft-/Fake-RAIDs implemented by board BIOS'es during boot and OS drivers after that. On 15.01.2013 18:22, Allen Landsidel wrote: > Your solution then is to require everyone use software raid on their > hardware raid controllers? > > On 1/15/2013 11:20, Alexander Motin wrote: >> On 15.01.2013 18:03, Allen Landsidel wrote: >>> I'm also extremely interested to hear how you intend to "handle it as >>> RAID10 at the OS level" since that is, in fact, impossible. >> Easily! >> >>> If it's a RAID0+1 in the controller, than it's a RAID0+1. Period. The >>> OS can't do anything about it. A single disk failure is still knocking >>> half the array offline (the entire failed RAID-0) and you are left with >>> a functioning RAID-0 with no redundancy at all. >> ataraid(8) in question (and its new alternative graid(8)) controls >> software RAIDs. It means that I can do anything I want in software as >> long as it fits into existing on-disk metadata format. If RAID BIOS >> wants to believe that two failed disks of four always mean failed array >> -- it is their decision I can't change. But after OS booted nothing will >> prevent me from accessing still available data replicas. >> >>> On > -- Alexander Motin