From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 22 19:43:20 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F5A81065672; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 19:43:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from richardtector@thekeelecentre.com) Received: from mx0.thekeelecentre.com (mx0.thekeelecentre.com [IPv6:2001:470:9391:2::3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C8D48FC1E; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 19:43:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from filter.mx0.thekeelecentre.com (filter.mx0.thekeelecentre.com [217.206.238.165]) by mx0.thekeelecentre.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CD4345406; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 20:43:18 +0100 (BST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at thekeelecentre.com Received: from mx0.thekeelecentre.com ([217.206.238.167]) by filter.mx0.thekeelecentre.com (filter.mx0.thekeelecentre.com [217.206.238.165]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7XBDf4tFyG3I; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 19:43:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.0.9.11] (coyote.tector.org.uk [217.206.238.187]) by mx0.thekeelecentre.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 4DEA145411; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 20:43:15 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <4BD0A689.8000508@thekeelecentre.com> Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 20:42:01 +0100 From: Richard Tector User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexander Motin References: <4BD06BD9.6030401@FreeBSD.org> <4BD099E6.6000402@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4BD099E6.6000402@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Maxim Sobolev , FreeBSD-Current , freebsd-geom@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Switchover to CAM ATA? 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: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 19:43:20 -0000 On 22/04/2010 19:48, Maxim Sobolev wrote: > Alexander Motin wrote: >> So what is the public opinion: Is the lack of ataraid(4) fatal or we can >> live without it? > > I believe it's fatal in long run. This would present significant > challenge for users who rely on this functionality from upgrading from > 8.x to 9.0 later on. Especially for ones using striped disks and RAID5. > > Therefore while it's no problem to have it in HEAD for now, but it > will have to be addressed before the release. Could I also add that the removal of ataraid would affect those users who dual-boot with Windows and rely on the psuedo-raid provided by most Intel chipsets to be able to share the same pair of disks. Regards, Richard