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>