The following reply was made to PR bin/166589; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Alexander Motin <m...@freebsd.org> To: Allen Landsidel <landsidel.al...@gmail.com> Cc: bug-follo...@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bin/166589: atacontrol(8) incorrectly treats RAID10 and 0+1 the same Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 18:25:14 +0200
At what point have we talked about hardware RAID controllers? ataraid(8) never controller hardware RAID controllers, but only Soft-/Fake-RAIDs implemented by board BIOS'es during boot and OS drivers after that. On 15.01.2013 18:22, Allen Landsidel wrote: > Your solution then is to require everyone use software raid on their > hardware raid controllers? > > On 1/15/2013 11:20, Alexander Motin wrote: >> On 15.01.2013 18:03, Allen Landsidel wrote: >>> I'm also extremely interested to hear how you intend to "handle it as >>> RAID10 at the OS level" since that is, in fact, impossible. >> Easily! >> >>> If it's a RAID0+1 in the controller, than it's a RAID0+1. Period. The >>> OS can't do anything about it. A single disk failure is still knocking >>> half the array offline (the entire failed RAID-0) and you are left with >>> a functioning RAID-0 with no redundancy at all. >> ataraid(8) in question (and its new alternative graid(8)) controls >> software RAIDs. It means that I can do anything I want in software as >> long as it fits into existing on-disk metadata format. If RAID BIOS >> wants to believe that two failed disks of four always mean failed array >> -- it is their decision I can't change. But after OS booted nothing will >> prevent me from accessing still available data replicas. >> >>> On > -- Alexander Motin _______________________________________________ freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-bugs To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-bugs-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
