Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 13:20:53 -0500 From: David Gilbert <dgilbert@dclg.ca> To: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Future of RAIDFrame Message-ID: <16385.37893.652979.822920@canoe.dclg.ca> In-Reply-To: <40008E4A.3060604@freebsd.org> References: <40007D14.6090205@freebsd.org> <xzpk73zs7sq.fsf@dwp.des.no> <40008E4A.3060604@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>>>> "Scott" == Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org> writes: Scott> Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: >> Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org> writes: >> >>> I started RAIDframe three years ago with the hope of bringing a >>> proven and extensible RAID stack to FreeBSD. >> >> >> I'm having trouble seeing what RF does that Vinum (or at least a >> properly GEOMified Vinum) can't do... >> >> DES Scott> Please read the RAIDframe documents at Scott> http://www.pdl.cmu.edu/RAIDframe before you ask again. Having used Vinum is production and on home boxes for some time, and having come in contact with Raidframe on NetBSD several times, I would distill this to several points. - Vinum is fairly fragile and a number of operations have vastly non-obvious steps. - Vinum's support for different types of RAID is limited. - Vinum's abstractions don't work for more complex cases. That said, we need a strong and robust software raid. Dave. -- ============================================================================ |David Gilbert, Independent Contractor. | Two things can only be | |Mail: dave@daveg.ca | equal if and only if they | |http://daveg.ca | are precisely opposite. | =========================================================GLO================
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?16385.37893.652979.822920>