From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 15 16:30:05 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 D565FBB8 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 16:30:05 +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 C835B3DE for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 16:30:05 +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 r0FGU5nU043282 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 16:30:05 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.6/8.14.6/Submit) id r0FGU5UA043281; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 16:30:05 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 16:30:05 GMT Message-Id: <201301151630.r0FGU5UA043281@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: Allen Landsidel 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 List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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 To: Alexander Motin Cc: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: bin/166589: atacontrol(8) incorrectly treats RAID10 and 0+1 the same Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 11:26:43 -0500 Holy crap. The PR is about hardware raid controllers and their interface with atacontrol, not ataraid. On 1/15/2013 11:25, Alexander Motin wrote: > 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 >