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

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

[Igor M Podlesny]

   subj. Hi :)

--

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

[NeilBrown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 563 bytes --]

On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 11:07:33 +0800 Igor M Podlesny <for.poige+lsr@gmail.com>
wrote:

>    subj. Hi :)
> 
> --
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Please try to construct coherent email message.  If you want people to read
what you write, make it easy for them.

Because!

With nowhere to record device failure, you don't have any safety.
Feel free to send a patch.

NeilBrown

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

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

[Igor M Podlesny]

On 25 June 2012 14:52, NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 11:07:33 +0800 Igor M Podlesny <for.poige+lsr@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>    subj. Hi :)
>
> Please try to construct coherent email message.  If you want people to read
> what you write, make it easy for them.

   And what is so uneasy in such a little quoting sentence?, I shall ask.

   Those, who know where does the quote come from, are the target
group, those, who doesn't — aren't.

   What's the problem?

> Because!
>
> With nowhere to record device failure, you don't have any safety.

   Well, suppose you don't need one — due to short-term period of such
an array existence which in its turn was predicated by real array
failure, say, damaging superblocks (if it reminds you something).
mdadm -C would create one, but you may not know which '-e' to specify.
That's the reasoning beneath to have -B which wouldn't overwrite any
data on disks at all so ideally fitting as a probe tool.

> Feel free to send a patch.

   — "Feel free" to spend time digging into an area which isn't what
you get paid for? At least what exactly should be patched this time,
will you kindly tell us?
>
> NeilBrown

--
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

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

[Roman Mamedov]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 575 bytes --]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 19:33:23 +0800
Igor M Podlesny <for.poige+lsr@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Feel free to send a patch.
> 
>    — "Feel free" to spend time digging into an area which isn't what
> you get paid for? At least what exactly should be patched this time,
> will you kindly tell us?

Oh come on, that's just rude. I don't think Neil is paid by anyone to answer
your questions here either.

-- 
With respect,
Roman

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Stallman had a printer,
with code he could not see.
So he began to tinker,
and set the software free."

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

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

[Igor M Podlesny]

On 25 June 2012 19:58, Roman Mamedov <rm@romanrm.ru> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 19:33:23 +0800
> Igor M Podlesny <for.poige+lsr@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Feel free to send a patch.
>>
>>    — "Feel free" to spend time digging into an area which isn't what
>> you get paid for? At least what exactly should be patched this time,
>> will you kindly tell us?
>
> Oh come on, that's just rude. I don't think Neil is paid by anyone to answer
> your questions here either.

   Neither he was paid to add his "feel free", I guess, was he? Or was
that such an intricate payment?

--
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

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

[David Brown]

On 25/06/2012 14:12, Igor M Podlesny wrote:
> On 25 June 2012 19:58, Roman Mamedov <rm@romanrm.ru> wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 19:33:23 +0800
>> Igor M Podlesny <for.poige+lsr@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Feel free to send a patch.
>>>
>>>     — "Feel free" to spend time digging into an area which isn't what
>>> you get paid for? At least what exactly should be patched this time,
>>> will you kindly tell us?
>>
>> Oh come on, that's just rude. I don't think Neil is paid by anyone to answer
>> your questions here either.
>
>     Neither he was paid to add his "feel free", I guess, was he? Or was
> that such an intricate payment?
>

Like many pieces of open source software, Linux md raid is written and 
maintained by a mixture of volunteer work and corporate sponsorship.  I 
have no idea how much Suse (or Novell) pay Neil for the work he does - 
but he goes far beyond the call of duty in his support work on this 
mailing list.  All he asks is that you ask your questions in a clear and 
polite way.  Putting the question in the subject but not in the body of 
the email is not good enough - the post should have a good subject line 
/and/ a good email 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?

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.  But if you want to get annoyed and sarcastic, please keep your 
comments to yourself.

mvh.,

David



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

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

[Igor M Podlesny]

On 25 June 2012 20:40, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> On 25/06/2012 14:12, Igor M Podlesny wrote:
[…]
> Like many pieces of open source software, Linux md raid is written and
> maintained by a mixture of volunteer work and corporate sponsorship.  I have
> no idea how much Suse (or Novell) pay Neil for the work he does - but he
> goes far beyond the call of duty in his support work on this mailing list.

   He went even further, since "feel free to send a patch" is clearly
sarcastic as well. Why? — I explained.

>  All he asks is that you ask your questions in a clear and polite way.
>  Putting the question in the subject but not in the body of the email is not
> good enough - the post should have a good subject line /and/ a good email

   Who said so? Don't your mail client show Subject line or what?
Don't make a mountain out of a molehill.

   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?

> 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?

--
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

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

[Rudy Zijlstra]

On 25-06-12 15:10, Igor M Podlesny wrote:
> On 25 June 2012 20:40, David Brown<david.brown@hesbynett.no>  wrote:
>> On 25/06/2012 14:12, Igor M Podlesny wrote:
>
>     The same applies to you — keep it to yourself, David, if you wish.
> I'm free to speak my mind free, am not I?
>
>
Sure, and we are free to add you to our kill list ;)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

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

[Igor M Podlesny]

On 25 June 2012 21:14, Rudy Zijlstra <rudy@grumpydevil.homelinux.org> wrote:
> On 25-06-12 15:10, Igor M Podlesny wrote:
>>
>> On 25 June 2012 20:40, David Brown<david.brown@hesbynett.no>  wrote:
>>>
>>> On 25/06/2012 14:12, Igor M Podlesny wrote:
>>
>>
>>    The same applies to you — keep it to yourself, David, if you wish.
>> I'm free to speak my mind free, am not I?
>>
>>
> Sure, and we are free to add you to our kill list ;)

   Inferiority complex? Go ahead.

--
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

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

[John Crisp]

On 25/06/12 15:17, Igor M Podlesny wrote:
>>>> On 25/06/2012 14:12, Igor M Podlesny wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>    The same applies to you — keep it to yourself, David, if you wish.
>>> I'm free to speak my mind free, am not I?
>>>
>>>
>> Sure, and we are free to add you to our kill list ;)
> 
>    Inferiority complex? Go ahead.
> 


No, I think like me he just hates rude people like you. None of the
excellent people round here deserve it either.

> Please try to construct coherent email message.  If you want people to
read
> what you write, make it easy for them.

In English, the word 'Please' as used by Neil in his first reply is
indicating that he is POLITELY asking that in future you construct your
email for the benefit of ALL readers of the list. You do not have a
personal hotline, and he was not being rude or sarcastic, unlike you.

Kindly take your arrogance, conceit, and inability to accept criticism
somewhere else.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

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

[Igor M Podlesny]

On 26 June 2012 01:59, John Crisp <john@reetspetit.net> wrote:
> On 25/06/12 15:17, Igor M Podlesny wrote:
>>>>> On 25/06/2012 14:12, Igor M Podlesny wrote:
[…]
> In English, the word 'Please' as used by Neil in his first reply is

   The same word was used by me, when I asked what exactly to patch.
But you seem to be too fanatic (biased) to notice. Bad for you then,
please read carefully before you judge  (and write).

--
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

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

[John Crisp]

On 26/06/12 03:57, Igor M Podlesny wrote:
> On 26 June 2012 01:59, John Crisp <john@reetspetit.net> wrote:
>> On 25/06/12 15:17, Igor M Podlesny wrote:
>>>>>> On 25/06/2012 14:12, Igor M Podlesny wrote:
> […]
>> In English, the word 'Please' as used by Neil in his first reply is
> 
>    The same word was used by me, when I asked what exactly to patch.
> But you seem to be too fanatic (biased) to notice. Bad for you then,
> please read carefully before you judge  (and write).
> 

No sir, I am neither biased nor fanatical, but am appreciative of the
fantastic help that people freely give here.

I also carefully read, and re-read, the entire thread before posting and
as I am English I understand it perfectly.

I suggest you re-read your own replies.

> The same word was used by me

Where precisely ? I do not see the word 'Please'. I see a sarcastic
response with a pathetic attempt to redeem that with the word 'kindly'.

Unfortunately, your English is as bad as your manners and your attitude.
You should rectify them all before giving others lessons. My original
comments on your character therefore still stand.

Add moronic and cretinous behaviour to the list.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

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

[NeilBrown]

[-- 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 --]

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

[Igor M Podlesny]

On 26 June 2012 09:13, NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de> wrote:
> 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.

   Look! The point is it didn't matter how and why and when I realized
it was prohibited (or not supported). That's why my question was short
— just "why is that?". That's all. Don't (over) complicate it, it
needs not! It could possibly went further in any of the directions you
listed above (and possibly others), but it could it not as well at
all.

> 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.

   Well, as I've already noted, you at least gave an explanation
(thanks!). I still don't see much reasoning behind it, but that's
another problem (and possibly mine). It's unclear to me how one should
safely repair MD array with damaged superblocks? Should one mess with
dd-backuping of all those disks' blocks which would be overwritten by
"mdadm -C"?  "mdadm -B" would be way better, as I've already said.

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

   Neil,  this is not LSR developers' list (at least primarily) and
I'm not a kernel developer. Even though I can read code in C and come
up with patches occasionally, it would take hell a lot of time and
efforts to investigate the problem and come up with a fix, which might
be not proper finally. So, yeah, every "feel free to send a patch"
would sound sarcastic. Since it's open source software, we all
remember everyone can send a patch. So, what's the point to repeat it
over and over again, then?… (Treat it as rhetoric question).

--
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html