From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx3.redhat.com (mx3.redhat.com [172.16.48.32]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i4SH0d023854 for ; Fri, 28 May 2004 13:00:39 -0400 Received: from office.labsysgrp.com (wsip-68-14-253-125.ph.ph.cox.net [68.14.253.125]) by mx3.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i4SH0XXn031577 for ; Fri, 28 May 2004 13:00:33 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by office.labsysgrp.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BTkia-0008Jz-06 for linux-lvm@redhat.com; Fri, 28 May 2004 10:00:28 -0700 Received: from office.labsysgrp.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (office.lsg.internal [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 31728-05 for ; Fri, 28 May 2004 10:00:27 -0700 (MST) Received: from jeeves.kpf.internal ([192.168.170.1]) by office.labsysgrp.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BTkiZ-0008Js-A3 for linux-lvm@redhat.com; Fri, 28 May 2004 10:00:27 -0700 Received: from [192.168.172.107] (helo=[192.168.172.107]) by jeeves.kpf.internal with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 1BTkiS-0006I2-00 for linux-lvm@redhat.com; Fri, 28 May 2004 10:00:20 -0700 Message-ID: <40B77026.5090302@backtobasicsmgmt.com> Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 10:00:22 -0700 From: "Kevin P. Fleming" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] [RFC] dmraid design 1.0.3 References: <20040528151953.GK16912@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20040528151953.GK16912@redhat.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: LVM general discussion and development List-Id: LVM general discussion and development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: LVM general discussion and development Heinz Mauelshagen wrote: > o do we need to support partitions on RAID sets ? IMHO the answer is no, because dmpartx (or whatever it's called) can do this today. It can use dm tables to slice up any existing block device, whether it's a raw disk or a dm-constructed RAID set. > Open questions: > --------------- > > o do we need to prioritize on device-mapper targets for higher RAID levels > (in particular we'ld need RAID5 to support some ATARAID formats) ? Personally I would be thrilled to see this work move ahead; in fact, I'd be happy to see this dmraid tool support the Linux MD metadata so I can use dm targets for my MD RAID-1 systems (thereby reducing the amount of code I build into my kernel).