From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 15 16:40:01 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 7731FF5D for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 16:40:01 +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 4E423682 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 16:40:01 +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 r0FGe1VA044844 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 16:40:01 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.6/8.14.6/Submit) id r0FGe1pG044843; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 16:40:01 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 16:40:01 GMT Message-Id: <201301151640.r0FGe1pG044843@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 16:40:01 -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 18:35:43 +0200 Please, be my guest to show me where atacontrol(8) controls any hardware RAID controller, or anything except ataraid(4) at all. On 15.01.2013 18:26, Allen Landsidel wrote: > 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 >> > -- Alexander Motin