[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: Optionally-partitioned devices
- From: David Lehman <dlehman redhat com>
- To: Discussion of Development and Customization of the Red Hat Linux Installer <anaconda-devel-list redhat com>
- Subject: Re: Optionally-partitioned devices
- Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:56:28 -0500
You're right, Dan. It just happens that "fakeraid" is the only term
other than "software raid" that came to me, and I wanted to
differentiate bios-raid from mdraid. I'll try to stick with "bios-raid"
from now on. "External metadata raid", despite seeeming most correct, is
just too many characters.
Dave
On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 09:53 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> David Lehman wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'd like to get a better idea of the perceived usefulness of
> > optionally-partitioned devices. There are two basic examples:
> >
> > - whole-disk filesystem, lvm pv, md component, &c (no partition table)
> > - partitioned md devices
> >
> > We seem to have set out on this road to some extent by accepting patches
> > to use the md subsystem for some fakeraid formats, but I'm wondering how
> > far we want to go. Do we want to support creation of filesystems and
> > other formatting on disks with no disklabel? Do we want to support the
> > creation of disklabels on md devices other than fakeraid arrays?
>
> Just a note, can we stop calling them fakeraid arrays? There is nothing
> fake about Linux software RAID. 'bios-raid', 'platform-raid', 'external
> metadata raid', or just 'software raid' are more appropriate.
>
> Thanks,
> Dan
>
> _______________________________________________
> Anaconda-devel-list mailing list
> Anaconda-devel-list redhat com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]