From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh Subject: Re: Linux mdadm superblock question. Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 17:34:06 -0200 Message-ID: <20100214193406.GA15722@khazad-dum.debian.net> References: <201002140251.59668.volkerarmin@googlemail.com> <4877c76c1002132002s20d942c3i7cee5418cdcf369c@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4877c76c1002132002s20d942c3i7cee5418cdcf369c@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Michael Evans Cc: Volker Armin Hemmann , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Sat, 13 Feb 2010, Michael Evans wrote: > I remember hearing that 1.x had /no/ plans for kernel level > auto-detection ever. That can be accomplished in early-userspace > leaving the code in the kernel much less complex, and therefore far > more reliable. Yes, it is far more reliable kernel side, if only because it doesn't do anything. But the userspace reliability is _not_ good. initrds are a source of problems the moment things start to go wrong, and that's when they are not the problem themselves. And the end result is a system that needs manual intervention to get its root filesystem back. In my experience, every time we moved critical codepaths to userspace, we ended up decreasing the *overall* system reliability. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh