From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Jan 15 16:30:04 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@smarthost.ysv.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5CEFBB5
 for <freebsd-bugs@smarthost.ysv.freebsd.org>;
 Tue, 15 Jan 2013 16:30:04 +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 D8E1E3DC
 for <freebsd-bugs@smarthost.ysv.freebsd.org>;
 Tue, 15 Jan 2013 16:30:04 +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 r0FGU4ck043275
 for <freebsd-bugs@freefall.freebsd.org>; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 16:30:04 GMT
 (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org)
Received: (from gnats@localhost)
 by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.6/8.14.6/Submit) id r0FGU4pd043274;
 Tue, 15 Jan 2013 16:30:04 GMT (envelope-from gnats)
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 16:30:04 GMT
Message-Id: <201301151630.r0FGU4pd043274@freefall.freebsd.org>
To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org
Cc: 
From: Allen Landsidel <landsidel.allen@gmail.com>
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: Allen Landsidel <landsidel.allen@gmail.com>
List-Id: Bug reports <freebsd-bugs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-bugs>,
 <mailto:freebsd-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-bugs>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-bugs>,
 <mailto:freebsd-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 16:30:05 -0000

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