Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 22 Jun 2007 13:39:34 +0100 | From | David Greaves <> | Subject | Re: limits on raid |
| |
david@lang.hm wrote: > On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, David Greaves wrote: > >> That's not a bad thing - until you look at the complexity it brings - >> and then consider the impact and exceptions when you do, eg hardware >> acceleration? md information fed up to the fs layer for xfs? simple >> long term maintenance? >> >> Often these problems are well worth the benefits of the feature. >> >> I _wonder_ if this is one where the right thing is to "just say no" :) > so for several reasons I don't see this as something that's deserving of > an atomatic 'no' > > David Lang
Err, re-read it, I hope you'll see that I agree with you - I actually just meant the --assume-clean workaround stuff :)
If you end up 'fiddling' in md because someone specified --assume-clean on a raid5 [in this case just to save a few minutes *testing time* on system with a heavily choked bus!] then that adds *even more* complexity and exception cases into all the stuff you described.
I'm very much for the fs layer reading the lower block structure so I don't have to fiddle with arcane tuning parameters - yes, *please* help make xfs self-tuning!
Keeping life as straightforward as possible low down makes the upwards interface more manageable and that goal more realistic...
David - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |