From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matt Domsch Subject: Re: Proposed enhancements to MD Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 13:41:07 -0600 Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20040113134107.A7646@lists.us.dell.com> References: <40033D02.8000207@adaptec.com> <40043C75.6040100@pobox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <40043C75.6040100@pobox.com>; from jgarzik@pobox.com on Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 01:44:05PM -0500 To: Jeff Garzik Cc: Scott Long , Linux Kernel , linux-raid , Neil Brown List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 01:44:05PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: > You sorta hit a bad time for 2.4 development. Even though my employer > (Red Hat), Adaptec, and many others must continue to support new > products on 2.4.x kernels, Indeed, enterprise class products based on 2.4.x kernels will need some form of solution here too. > kernel development has shifted to 2.6.x (and soon 2.7.x). > > In general, you want a strategy of "develop on latest, then backport if > needed." Ideally in 2.6 one can use device mapper, but DM hasn't been incorporated into 2.4 stock, I know it's not in RHEL 3, and I don't believe it's included in SLES8. Can anyone share thoughts on if a DDF solution were built on top of DM, that DM could be included in 2.4 stock, RHEL3, or SLES8? Otherwise, Adaptec will be stuck with two different solutions anyhow, one for 2.4 (they're proposing enhancing MD), and DM for 2.6. Thanks, Matt -- Matt Domsch Sr. Software Engineer, Lead Engineer Dell Linux Solutions www.dell.com/linux Linux on Dell mailing lists @ http://lists.us.dell.com