From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Williams Subject: Re: Subject: [001/002 ] raid0 reshape Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 00:53:28 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1241300764.5607.36.camel@raz> <18965.16276.485692.812516@notabene.brown> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <18965.16276.485692.812516@notabene.brown> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Neil Brown Cc: raz ben yehuda , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, Jacek Danecki , "Labun, Marcin" List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 4:48 AM, Neil Brown wrote: > On Tuesday May 19, dan.j.williams@intel.com wrote: >> On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 2:46 PM, raz ben yehuda wro= te: > =A0- Surely RAID0 is (like LVM) just a legacy idea until we get sensi= ble > =A0 file systems that actually understand multiple devices and do all > =A0 this stuff for you are a more sensible level - so why are we > =A0 busting a gut(*) to make RAID0 work well?? =A0Answer is of course > =A0 that no-one has made a sensible file system yet. (well... maybe z= fs > =A0 or btrfs, not sure) "Compatibility" is another cause of the abdominal pressure. See the single drive to raid0 migrations supported by the Windows driver: http://www.intel.com/support/chipsets/imsm/sb/cs-020674.htm > So: lots of thoughts, some pointing in different directions. > But I'm not against reshape code appearing in RAID0 providing it is > well designed, maintainable, reliable, and doesn't slow down normal > RAID0 processing. =A0I suspect we can get there. Nod. Thanks, Dan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html