On 20 April 2009 c. 05:15:50 Nick Holland wrote:
> Vadim Zhukov wrote:
> > Hello all.
> >
> > Is there any particular reason to not have RAIDFrame built-in in
> > RAMDISK_CD kernels? I mean, are there any restrictions, except
> > kernel/ramdisk size, which are not the case with RAMDISK_CD,
> > obviously?
> >
> > Maybe I missed something digging through Google output containing a
> > lot of links to official FAQ and quotes from it. :(
>
> What would the point of putting it on the RAMDISK kernels, when it
> isn't in GENERIC?
It'll make updates easier (one less kernel to build). Also, many people,
including me (yes, I'm not a developer, so this is just information and
not anything more) use bsd.rd for quick repairing some broken PCs.
As FAQ says, RAIDFrame isn't in GENERIC just because it'll make GENERIC
too fat. And this isn't the case for bsd.rd, it isn't intended for, erm,
generic usage. :)
It was mentioned many times that RAIDFrame is stable enough, many people
use it in production - so this isn't the point to not put it into stock
kernel. If I'm wrong then RAIDFrame should be mentioned
as "experimental" or "unstable" in raid(4) and FAQ. :)
--
Best wishes,
Vadim Zhukov
A: Because it messes up the way people read text.
Q: Why is a top-posting such a bad thing?
