From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lars Marowsky-Bree Subject: Re: [PATCH 000 of 7] md: Introduction - raid5 reshape mark-2 Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:23:03 +0100 Message-ID: <20060124092303.GD22870@marowsky-bree.de> References: <20060124112626.4447.patches@notabene> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060124112626.4447.patches@notabene> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: NeilBrown , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On 2006-01-24T11:40:47, NeilBrown wrote: > I am expecting that I will ultimately support online conversion of > raid5 to raid6 with only one extra device. This process is not > (efficiently) checkpointable and so will be at-your-risk. So the best way to go about that, if one wants to keep that option open w/o that risk, would be to not create a raid5 in the first place, but a raid6 with one disk missing? Maybe even have mdadm default to that - as long as just one parity disk is missing, no slowdown should happen, right? Sincerely, Lars Marowsky-Br=E9e --=20 High Availability & Clustering SUSE Labs, Research and Development SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - A Novell Business -- Charles Darwin "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html