Re: "mdadm: Raid level 5 not permitted with --build" -- why is that?

[NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2473 bytes --]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 21:10:17 +0800 Igor M Podlesny <for.poige+lsr@gmail.com>
wrote:

>    It's simple matter and as to me I prefer brevity. I see no purpose
> in inflating mail body just due to it was short. It's simple matter,
> that's why it's short, damn it.
> 
>    And finally — the fact of the reply *was* given proved that the
> question was easily understood. So what, then?

This is not actually correct.  I don't think that I did understand your
question, as you had provided no context.
Your question might have been:
 1/ I was reading the man page and discovered that RAID5 is not 
    permitted with --build and wondered why.
or
 2/ I was reading the code and saw that RAID5 is not permitted with 
    --build and wondered why
or
 3/ I was trying to do XX and thought that --build might be a solution
    but I need RAID5 and --build doesn't support RAID5 - why is that?

Each of these could have quite different answers so I couldn't be sure that
what I would say would actually be helpful unless I answered all of them,
which would probably be a waste of effort to some extent.  This is why I felt
that "Because!" was about all that the question really deserved.

I was feeling rather tired at the time which probably explains (without
justifying) the shortness of my answer.  I should have realised that and not
replied at all - my mistake.

BTW I wasn't intending sarcasm at all - sorry if you thought I was.

NeilBrown



> 
> > body.  Why should Neil or anyone else take the time to write a helpful reply
> > to someone who cannot even be bothered to write a good email?
> 
>    Ask him, not me. I wrote, he answered. 49 % off-topic, 1 % sarcasm,
> another 50 on topic — hell yeah, at least something!
> 
> > Neil told you why md raid does not (currently) implement "--build" for
> > raid5.  And he suggested that if you want that behaviour to change, you are
> > always welcome to send a patch.  If you don't want to write an
> > implementation of the missing behaviour, that's fair enough too - very few
> > people respond to "feel free to send a patch" by actually sending a patch.
> 
>    And I reminded that my daily job is not LSR hacking, so now what?
> 
> >  But if you want to get annoyed and sarcastic, please keep your comments to
> > yourself.
> 
>    The same applies to you — keep it to yourself, David, if you wish.
> I'm free to speak my mind free, am not I?
> 
> --


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 828 bytes --]