Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 15 Jan 2013 16:30:04 GMT
From:      Allen Landsidel <landsidel.allen@gmail.com>
To:        freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: bin/166589: atacontrol(8) incorrectly treats RAID10 and 0+1 the same
Message-ID:  <201301151630.r0FGU4pd043274@freefall.freebsd.org>

next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR bin/166589; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Allen Landsidel <landsidel.allen@gmail.com>
To: Alexander Motin <mav@FreeBSD.org>
Cc: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: bin/166589: atacontrol(8) incorrectly treats RAID10 and 0+1 the
 same
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 11:22:00 -0500

 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
 



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201301151630.r0FGU4pd043274>