From: maarten van den Berg <maarten@ultratux.net>
To: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: mdadm - comments on command layout
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 16:46:43 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200408141646.43625.maarten@ultratux.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <16670.1701.954970.773800@cse.unsw.edu.au>
On Saturday 14 August 2004 14:33, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Friday August 13, stoffel@lucent.com wrote:
> > Hi Neil,
> >
> > I've been using mdadm recently to work with some arrays and I really
> > have to say I dislike how the commands are laid out and used. First
> > off, they're not consistent from one usage to another. Of course, I'm
> > going to be jerk and not give good examples since my personal box at
> > home is down and I'm at work. But the idea is that when you assemble
> > a RAID device, it should look similiar to how you manage that raid
> > device.
>
> Examples would really help. In my mind it is very regular. There is
> some room for flexibility, but generally, the usage is
>
> mdadm --mode --option... /dev/md-device [ component devices ... ]
Hi Neil,
In my mind, either the manpage is somewhat confusing, or the program is.
From the exact syntax above I would assume that to (hot)add a device I need to
type 'mdadm --manage -a ...'. But just 'mdadm -a ...' is enough. So is the
case for some other modes. The syntax given isn't mdadm [--mode] --option ,
so one would assume just omitting --manage would lead to an error.
This was, I mean still is, indeed confusing to me.
There is another bit. Quoting from the manpage you first have MODES, then the
6 modi are explained, and directly thereafter comes OPTIONS, but some of them
seem to list modes, not options:
-A, --assemble
-B, --build
-C, --create
etc.
So that leaves a big question; is it a mode, an option...?
The whole mode thing is either not clear to _me_, or it is somewhat confusing
in general. I wouldn't really suggest that typing 'mdadm -a' instead of
'mdadm --manage -a' should lead to an error, but the concept of the modi now
makes little sense (to me personally). But maybe I just misunderstood things.
.
So moving the -A, -B etc. "options" to the section "modes" above, adding a -M
--manage mode there as well might make everything clearer. (That's just MHO.)
But anyhow, the program does what it's supposed to do, so... :-)
Respectfully,
Maarten
--
When I answered where I wanted to go today, they just hung up -- Unknown
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-08-14 14:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-08-13 20:25 mdadm - comments on command layout John Stoffel
2004-08-14 2:28 ` berk walker
2004-08-14 9:56 ` Frank van Maarseveen
2004-08-14 12:33 ` Neil Brown
2004-08-14 14:46 ` maarten van den Berg [this message]
2004-08-14 16:26 ` Guy
2004-08-14 14:13 ` Mark Hahn
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200408141646.43625.maarten@ultratux.net \
--to=maarten@ultratux.net \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).