From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: keld@keldix.com Subject: Re: RAID 10 far and offset on-disk layouts Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 10:38:34 +0100 Message-ID: <20140114093834.GB4077@www5.open-std.org> References: <52BD9B4F.3000509@assyoma.it> <20131227154952.GA6539@www5.open-std.org> <52CE57D9.1030501@assyoma.it> <20140113102021.1ef3e203@notabene.brown> <52D3A962.4000308@assyoma.it> <20140113204534.737a98f6@notabene.brown> <52D3BCB1.1010200@assyoma.it> <20140114092751.09464b7b@notabene.brown> <20140113233834.GA8885@www5.open-std.org> <52D488D7.4080604@hardwarefreak.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <52D488D7.4080604@hardwarefreak.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stan Hoeppner Cc: NeilBrown , Gionatan Danti , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 06:46:15PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > On 1/13/2014 5:38 PM, keld@keldix.com wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 09:27:51AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > ... > >> So this change: > >> > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Non-standard_RAID_levels&diff=501908270&oldid=501604733 > >> > >> was wrong. > > > > Well, it was me doing the wikipedia edit. The edit was done based on information from Neil that this was actually > > the layout. Then later we found out that it really was not, but it should be; and then Neil implemented > > the better layout. Maybe it is not called "f2", I look forward to be informed what the actual name > > will be. > > > > I think the name should be "f2" as it is a "far" layout, with 2 copies, and it really should be > > the default for "far" with 2 copies, as the redundancy is much better than the old layout. > > Keeping the name would mean that we would not need to make and spread documentation on this, > > so that people following existing documentation would automatically get the better implementation. > > There is no need that new raid instances of "far" should get the old layout, except for > > backwards compatibility. > > The problem here is that you're creating the Wikipedia page as if it > *is* source reference material. I.e. you're including "original work, > your original work. This is a violation of the Wikipedia rules of > editing. And this kind of situation is exactly why those rules exist. I am only referencing material available other places. > The layout tables you are including need to exist in a free to duplicate > reference document, and should be copied verbatim from said document. > They should not be created from scratch simply based on information in > an email exchange on a mailing list, just as web forums are not > considered a valid reference source. I only described things that was already described. best regards keld