Subject: Re: Experimental support for ATA "RAID" volumes
To: Jason R Thorpe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Manuel Bouyer <email@example.com>
Date: 02/01/2003 23:06:05
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 12:31:47PM -0800, Jason R Thorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 09:28:44PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> > What are your plans for raid1 or more ?
> I plan to implement it eventually.
> > We should probably be using the raidframe framework for this, and maybe for
> > raid0 too. My idea for this was to make the raidframe autoconfig stuff more
> > flexible, so that it could be autoconfigured from its own on-disk data,
> > or from the ataraid pseudo-device.
> Honestly, I don't believe we should be. RAIDframe is far too heavy-weight.
> There is no need for it to do ... it uses threads FAR too much. It is
> way too much object code.
> I would actually prefer to see a much lighter-weight RAID implementation
> in NetBSD.
But such an implementation doesn't exist yet.
As first step we could split the raid autoconfig code from the raidframe code
itself. This would allow to have raidframe devices attached via different
autoconfig methods (ataraid, raidframe-style labels on disk, etc ...).
Then it would allow different raid softwares to be used by these autoconfig
Manuel Bouyer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
NetBSD: 24 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference