From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bill Davidsen Subject: Re: Need to remove failed disk from RAID5 array Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 10:51:01 -0400 Message-ID: <50081ED5.8090908@tmr.com> References: <50071C0A.8080307@tmr.com> <20120719091611.22e16100@natsu> <500818D5.4080208@tmr.com> <20120719203557.62a12bcd@natsu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20120719203557.62a12bcd@natsu> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Roman Mamedov , Linux RAID List-Id: linux-raid.ids Roman Mamedov wrote: > On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 10:25:25 -0400 > Bill Davidsen wrote: > >> That's a good argument for not using "whole disk" array members, a partition can >> be started at a good offset and may perform better. > > Not really, at least with the modern metadata versions this is not a problem, > as the whole-disk array members will start the actual data at an offset that is > suitably aligned for the AF drives. > When did that start? And how does it handle adding a new drive to an array created back under 2.6 which didn't do that? Good to be aware of, though. -- Bill Davidsen "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot