Re: btrfs

[Christoph Anton Mitterer <calestyo@scientia.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1682 bytes --]

On Sun, 2016-06-05 at 09:51 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> Why is mdadm the reference point for terminology?
I haven't said it is,... I just said it mdadm, original paper, WP use
it the common/historic way.
And since all of these were there before btrfs, and in the case of
mdadm/MD "in" the kernel,... one should probably try to follow that, if
possible.



> There's actually better consistency in terminology usage outside
> Linux
> because of SNIA and DDF than within Linux where the most basic terms
> aren't agreed upon by various upstream maintainers.

Does anyone in the Linux world really care much about DDF? Even
outside? ;-)
Seriously,... as I tried to show in one of my previous posts, I think
the terminology of DDF, at least WRT RAID1 is a bit awkward.


>  mdadm and lvm use
> different terms even though they're both now using the same md
> backend
> in the kernel.
Depending on whether one choose to use "raid1" and "mirror" segment
types....


Anyway,... I think that discussion gets a bit pointless,... I think
it's clear that the current terminology may easily cause confusion, and
I think for a term like "RAID1", which is a artificial name it's
something completely else as for terms like "stripe", "chunk", etc.,
which are rather common terms and where one must expect that they are
used for different things in different areas.

And as I've said just before... the other points on my bucket list,
like the UUID collision (security) issues, the no checksumming with
nodatacow, etc.  deserve IMHO much more attention than the terminology
:)

So I'm kinda out of this specific part of the discussion.

Cheers,
Chris.

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature, Size: 5930 bytes --]