From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: John Robinson Subject: Re: [PATCH] imsm: Forbid spanning between multiple controllers. Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 08:49:22 +0000 Message-ID: <50F66992.7090400@anonymous.org.uk> References: <20121109144636.2215.91684.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <50EF3961.5050306@ubuntu.com> <8565BDA60DEA9E4C91B1047AD1958FBE1DEC8F5B@IRSMSX104.ger.corp.intel.com> <50F419F2.9050809@ubuntu.com> <679865E03F4C71419D9847EA3AACB16316215258@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> <50F56E52.1090302@ubuntu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <50F56E52.1090302@ubuntu.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Phillip Susi Cc: "Patelczyk, Maciej" , "Tomczak, Marcin" , "neilb@suse.de" , "linux-raid@vger.kernel.org" , "Dorau, Lukasz" List-Id: linux-raid.ids On 15/01/2013 14:57, Phillip Susi wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 1/15/2013 5:31 AM, Patelczyk, Maciej wrote: >> Hi Phillip, >> >> Mdadm does not care about the controller unless you created IMSM >> based RAID. Basically you can create that type of RAID *only* on >> Intel based platforms with OROM enabled. It's Intel solution, we >> support it and we maintain it. It's very specific type of metadata. [...] > > Warnings about potentially troublesome situations are good, but > outright refusal is not. Yes, I realize it would be a problem for > Windows due to the poor way the driver has to be implemented ( why > can't the OROM see other disks on other controllers? ), but sometimes > you don't care about that. For instance, if you are setting up the > array on one machine where you can not connect all of the drives to > the same controller ( and do not care about booting from the array on > this machine ), but you are planning on moving them to a machine where > they will be. This is just one example of many situations where you > need to be able to say "I know what I'm doing, go ahead anyway". Isn't there, or wasn't there, an environment variable for mdadm called something like IMSM_PLATFORM_IGNORE for precisely this scenario? Is that what this patch series disabled? Cheers, John.