bin/166589: atacontrol(8) incorrectly treats RAID10 and 0+1 the same
Alexander Motin
mav at FreeBSD.org
Tue Jan 15 16:30:01 UTC 2013
The following reply was made to PR bin/166589; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Alexander Motin <mav at FreeBSD.org>
To: Allen Landsidel <landsidel.allen at gmail.com>
Cc: bug-followup at 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
More information about the freebsd-bugs
mailing list