Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:03:41 -0500 From: Mark Felder <feld@feld.me> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [CFC/CFT] large changes in the loader(8) code Message-ID: <op.wgkvcfnu34t2sn@tech304> In-Reply-To: <201206261337.11741.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <4FE9B01C.30306@yandex.ru> <201206261337.11741.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:37:11 -0500, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote: > I'm > hesitant to encourage the use of this as I do think putting GPT inside > of a > gmirror violates the GPT spec. I personally think this use case is a bit ... odd, anyway. I have only request to those that manage GPT/GEOM/etc -- as I'm used to doing multiple mdadm RAID components on Linux for maximum flexibility, using gmirror upon multiple GPT partitions upon the same physical device is OK with me. My only complaint is that recovery is very, very stupid. We should by default detect and only rebuild ONE gmirror device at a time on the same physical provider. You get nothing but a smokin' angry head if you allow multiple to rebuild at the same time because it's fighting over sequential writes all the way across the platters. It would also be nice if gmirror rebuild could also be detected by fsck and fsck could either hold off or gmirror could be paused until a consistent filesystem state exists. It's probably best for the background fsck to go first so you can get the system up and running, but then when it's finished gmirror should continue. Otherwise I have no issues with gmirror -- it does exactly the job I need it to.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?op.wgkvcfnu34t2sn>