From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: "Enhanced" MD code avaible for review Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 13:48:52 -0500 Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <40632994.7080504@pobox.com> References: <760890000.1079727553@aslan.btc.adaptec.com> <16480.61927.863086.637055@notabene.cse.unsw.edu.au> <40624235.30108@pobox.com> <200403251200.35199.kevcorry@us.ibm.com> <40632804.1020101@pobox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <40632804.1020101@pobox.com> To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Kevin Corry , Neil Brown , "Justin T. Gibbs" , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Jeff Garzik wrote: > My take on things... the configuration of RAID arrays got a lot more > complex with DDF and "host RAID" in general. Association of RAID arrays > based on specific hardware controllers. Silently building RAID0+1 > stacked arrays out of non-RAID block devices the kernel presents. > Failing over when one of the drives the kernel presents does not respond. > > All that just screams "do it in userland". Just so there is no confusion... the "failing over...in userland" thing I mention is _only_ during discovery of the root disk. Similar code would need to go into the bootloader, for controllers that do not present the entire RAID array as a faked BIOS INT drive. Jeff