From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roman Mamedov Subject: Re: Failed during rebuild (raid5) Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 22:32:57 +0600 Message-ID: <20130503223257.3ec8025c@natsu> References: <51839E4F.7050102@midgaard.us> <5183A1C7.5000905@mpstor.com> <20130503124023.GB27548@cthulhu.home.robinhill.me.uk> <20867.49429.400548.184315@quad.stoffel.home> <5183CF09.1080605@turmel.org> <20867.58492.72376.428170@quad.stoffel.home> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/ckGl2Ycqzkq+Tfy/wddRQjm"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20867.58492.72376.428170@quad.stoffel.home> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: John Stoffel Cc: Phil Turmel , Robin Hill , Andreas Boman , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, Benjamin ESTRABAUD List-Id: linux-raid.ids --Sig_/ckGl2Ycqzkq+Tfy/wddRQjm Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 3 May 2013 12:23:24 -0400 "John Stoffel" wrote: > Sure, but I'm saying that MD should push the policy to default to > doing this. You can turn if off if you like and if you know enough. =20 I wouldn't want mdadm suddenly change its behavior on my systems to activate some automated waste of resources, and leave me scrambling how to disable this, with the point of this whole change being to pander to stupid and gre= edy people (because using RAID5 and not RAID6 with a set-up of six 4 TB drives is nothing but utter stupidity and greed). Let them lose their arrays once = or twice, and learn. --=20 With respect, Roman --Sig_/ckGl2Ycqzkq+Tfy/wddRQjm Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlGD5rkACgkQTLKSvz+PZwjxiQCeNdCE9/A4rPgQUvRJKF/evNvt LwMAmwXCQygvZgd6mkHUowYhkDRHMKbe =KwPn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/ckGl2Ycqzkq+Tfy/wddRQjm--