Subject: CCD mirroring, bogus documentation (was Re: differential scsi controllers)
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Michael K. Sanders <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/01/1998 09:33:40
[ port-i386 trimmed ]
In message <199807011515.LAA03632@jekyll.piermont.com>, "Perry E. Metzger" writ
>It is known that CCD mirror doesn't work -- I even believe that Jason
>was going to yank it out, because he believes his code isn't worth
>fixing as is. We are now moving towards using RAIDframe for this, or
>so I am told.
I don't mean to be ungrateful or anything, but if things like this are
"known", why aren't they documented somewhere? Relying on some sort
of collective consciousness of users/developers that "knows" about
problems doesn't work very well sometimes. :)
Things like this have the potential to be unpleasant suprises for
unsuspecting new users who are led to believe by manual pages and such
that functionality exists or is stable when it really shouldn't be
used in certain situations (unionfs 'locking against self' problems,
anyone? :), or at all.
Should I file a PR with warning/disclaimer text for the ccd(4) man
I'll have to look at RAIDframe-- I hadn't heard of it before. Thanks
for the reference.