* Proposal for metadata version 2.x :)
@ 2012-06-17 10:12 Igor M Podlesny
2012-06-17 13:37 ` Phil Turmel
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Igor M Podlesny @ 2012-06-17 10:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-raid
Hi! If I understand correctly, one cannot safely switch between 1.x
metdata layouts since data offsets would be different, right?
Why not to overcome this limitation by holding all three metadata
zones reserved to prevent RAID data allocation inside them? It doesn't
seem to be significant waste of disk space, but would be more flexible
indeed.
--
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Proposal for metadata version 2.x :)
2012-06-17 10:12 Proposal for metadata version 2.x :) Igor M Podlesny
@ 2012-06-17 13:37 ` Phil Turmel
2012-06-17 18:04 ` Igor M Podlesny
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Phil Turmel @ 2012-06-17 13:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Igor M Podlesny; +Cc: linux-raid
On 06/17/2012 06:12 AM, Igor M Podlesny wrote:
> Hi! If I understand correctly, one cannot safely switch between 1.x
> metdata layouts since data offsets would be different, right?
>
> Why not to overcome this limitation by holding all three metadata
> zones reserved to prevent RAID data allocation inside them? It doesn't
> seem to be significant waste of disk space, but would be more flexible
> indeed.
A very useful property of v1.0 metadata is that the contents start at
the partition start, making Raid1 contents available to bootloaders when
the array isn't running. That behavior is incompatible with your
suggestion, so your suggestion will be unacceptable to anyone using that
behavior to their advantage. (Like me.)
Phil
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Proposal for metadata version 2.x :)
2012-06-17 13:37 ` Phil Turmel
@ 2012-06-17 18:04 ` Igor M Podlesny
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Igor M Podlesny @ 2012-06-17 18:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Phil Turmel; +Cc: linux-raid
On 17 June 2012 21:37, Phil Turmel <philip@turmel.org> wrote:
> On 06/17/2012 06:12 AM, Igor M Podlesny wrote:
[…]
> suggestion, so your suggestion will be unacceptable to anyone using that
> behavior to their advantage. (Like me.)
>
> Phil
«… — Doctor, it hurts when I'm doing so!
— Well, don't do that then. …»
Nobody urges you (or anyone) to stop using 1.0 for boot mirrors.
Nobody also told you that only one metadata format should be
applicable for all your RAIDs. It's your choice, you can use 1.0 for
anything, even those RAIDs which shouldn't be bootable at all.
--
--
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-06-17 18:04 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-06-17 10:12 Proposal for metadata version 2.x :) Igor M Podlesny
2012-06-17 13:37 ` Phil Turmel
2012-06-17 18:04 ` Igor M Podlesny
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).