From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bill Davidsen Subject: Re: Time to deprecate old RAID formats? Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 20:48:35 -0400 Message-ID: <47252DE3.5090105@tmr.com> References: <18200.49267.763509.924873@stoffel.org> <18200.53593.687483.120827@stoffel.org> <1192810534.1666.68.camel@firewall.xsintricity.com> <18200.56684.14194.630264@stoffel.org> <1192813877.1666.79.camel@firewall.xsintricity.com> <18200.63987.514073.184865@stoffel.org> <471E7DC6.7050206@tmr.com> <1193184555.10336.3.camel@firewall.xsintricity.com> <18207.56169.769976.512617@notabene.brown> <471FDEB1.8040401@garzik.org> <47204F45.4010205@dgreaves.com> <18209.34365.375059.602828@notabene.brown> <4721F742.1090301@tmr.com> <1193424116.10336.281.camel@firewall.xsintricity.com> <1193519471.10336.359.camel@firewall.xsintricity.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1193519471.10336.359.camel@firewall.xsintricity.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Doug Ledford Cc: Linux RAID Mailing List List-Id: linux-raid.ids Doug Ledford wrote: > On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 14:41 -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: > >> Actually, after doing some research, here's what I've found: >> > I should note that both the lvm code and raid code are simplistic at the > moment. For example, the raid5 mapping only supports the default raid5 > layout. If you use any other layout, game over. Getting it to work > with version 1.1 or 1.2 superblocks probably wouldn't be that hard, but > getting it to the point where it handles all the relevant setups > properly would require a reasonable amount of coding. > > My first thought is that after the /boot partition is read (assuming you use one) restrictions go away. Performance of /boot is not much of an issue, for me at least, but more complex setups are sometimes need for the rest of the system. Thanks for the research. -- bill davidsen CTO TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979