[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
[dm-devel] Re: ATARAID/FakeRAID/HPTRAID/PDCRAID as dm targets?
- From: Wilfried Weissmann <Wilfried Weissmann gmx at>
- To: Arjan van de Ven <arjanv redhat com>
- Cc: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <B Zolnierkiewicz elka pw edu pl>, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d hailfinger kernel 2004 gmx net>, Device mapper devel list <dm-devel redhat com>, "Kevin P. Fleming" <kpfleming backtobasicsmgmt com>, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik pobox com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel vger kernel org>
- Subject: [dm-devel] Re: ATARAID/FakeRAID/HPTRAID/PDCRAID as dm targets?
- Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 14:47:06 +0100
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 07:23:01PM -0700, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
Jeff Garzik wrote:
So go ahead, and I'll lend you as much help as I can. I have the full
Promise RAID docs, and it seems like another guy on the lists has full
Silicon Image "medley" RAID docs...
I am the only one without docs? Oh, Crap!
If these "soft" RAID implementations only support RAID-0/1/0+1/1+0, is
there really any need for a new DM target? Wouldn't you just need a
userspace tool to recognize the array and do the "dmsetup" operations to
make it usable?
the later.
Why not join my evms-plugin work? This has 4 advantages over the
"stand-alone binary" approach:
1. its all within evms
There is no need for additional tools required to setup the volume
(thinking about installers and initrd...).
2. evms comes with partition handling.
Otherwise someone has to write another tool/library that does the
partition setup.
3. it works for 2.6 and (patched) 2.4 kernels
4. nice clickety-click user interface
Especially useful for lazy people like me. ;)
My plugin has to be a bit redesigned to allow easier integration of
support code for other controllers. What is required is basically to
split the plugin in a common and a per-controller module. No big deal.
Or we can make a new plugin for every controller...
see: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=evms-devel&m=107936928618685&w=2
Apropos: If we do evms plugins then we might want to have the
possibility to detect if some ataraid module aleady has picked up the
disk. In this case we should not create a volume because of someone
might try to mount the same volume via the ataraid and evms devicefiles
which leads to filesystem corruption. I thought about makeing a /proc
ataraid entry that contains the claimed disks. I think this should be
supported by all ataraid modules if this is done so I am asking you:
What do you think?
Regards,
Wilfried
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]