From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 14 06:32:23 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 469BC16A41F for ; Wed, 14 Sep 2005 06:32:23 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from sos@FreeBSD.org) Received: from spider.deepcore.dk (cpe.atm2-0-53484.0x50a6c9a6.abnxx9.customer.tele.dk [80.166.201.166]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD52E43D49 for ; Wed, 14 Sep 2005 06:32:22 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from sos@FreeBSD.org) Received: from [194.192.25.136] (mac.deepcore.dk [194.192.25.136]) by spider.deepcore.dk (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j8E6WJ45039931; Wed, 14 Sep 2005 08:32:19 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from sos@FreeBSD.org) In-Reply-To: <43276D91.5000109@cs.unisa.edu.au> References: <43276D91.5000109@cs.unisa.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v734) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <606DFC2A-BE8F-401A-A790-03BF92A66190@FreeBSD.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=F8ren_Schmidt?= Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 08:32:02 +0200 To: Benjamin Close X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.734) X-mail-scanned: by DeepCore Virus & Spam killer v1.12 Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: State Of Raid 5 in RELENG_6 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 06:32:23 -0000 On 14/09/2005, at 2:23, Benjamin Close wrote: > Hi All, > With FreeBSD 6 getting closer, I was curious about what was =20 > happening with raid 5 support on ata-raid. > > At present, raid 5 arrays are detected and can be used, though =20 > looking at the code, there is no support for parity. Hence running =20 > raid 5 is effectively running raid 0. > > If this is likely to be the case when 6 is shipped, there should at =20= > least be a warning regarding this at boot time. Actually my plan was to disable it entirely. It should newer have =20 slipped in now that we have 20/20 hindsight, but getting the metadata =20= gathering code tested seemed like a good idea to me back when... S=F8ren Schmidt sos@FreeBSD.org