From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jan 11 03:39:17 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC7CB16A4CE; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 03:39:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from mindfields.energyhq.es.eu.org (73.Red-213-97-200.pooles.rima-tde.net [213.97.200.73]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89BAD43D2F; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 03:39:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from flynn@energyhq.es.eu.org) Received: from energyhq.es.eu.org (scienide.energyhq.es.eu.org [192.168.100.1]) by mindfields.energyhq.es.eu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6BCF356F0; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 12:39:13 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <400135EA.8050603@energyhq.es.eu.org> Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 12:39:22 +0100 From: Miguel Mendez User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; DragonFly i386; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20040110 Thunderbird/0.4 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Scott Long References: <40007D14.6090205@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <40007D14.6090205@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: hackers@freebsd.org cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Future of RAIDFrame X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 11:39:18 -0000 Scott Long wrote: > I started RAIDframe three years ago with the hope of bringing a proven > and extensible RAID stack to FreeBSD. Unfortunately, while it was made > to work pretty well on 4.x, it has never been viable on 5.x; it never > survived the introduction of GEOM and removal of the old disk layer. > I'm coming to the conclusion that I really don't have the time to work > on it in my spare time. Also, I've seen next to zero interest in it > from others, except for the occasional reminder that it doesn't work. William Carrel used to maintain a set of patches for RAIDframe on 4.x, were they ever committed? No? Why not? WRT lack of interest in RF. First, the 5.0 patches were horrible. That code was a mess to work with. Second, inertia. Most people with simple needs like mirroring and/or simple stripes were happy with good old ccd(4). Those who needed a full volume manager (which neither ccd nor RF claim to be) used vinum. People with VxVM experience feel at home with it. Unfortunately, vinum has its own set of issues as well. It's probably easier to write a set of GEOM classes from scratch than trying to shoehorn RF into GEOM. Cheers, Miguel Mendez http://www.energyhq.es.eu.org