Subject: Re: Removing "rows" from the RAIDframe driver..
To: Greg Oster <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Gary Thorpe <email@example.com>
Date: 12/21/2003 23:19:37
--- Greg Oster <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > Manuel Bouyer writes:
> > On Sat, Dec 20, 2003 at 10:51:06AM -0600, Greg Oster wrote:
> > >
> > > I am therefore proposing to entirely remove from the kernel the
> > > feigned support for multiple rows. Configuration files,
> > > labels, etc. will all continue to have the "row" field, but this
> > > end up getting hard-coded to "1 row" where needed, and "row 0"
> where a
> > > row value is still required. Nothing wil change with respect to
> > > configuration of RAID sets.
> > > will be changed, but those changes will only be related to kernel
> > > internals, and none of the structures used for passing
> > > information will change.
> > Hi,
> > would a raid1 with n*2 disks continue to works (e.g. something
> > START array
> > # numRow numCol numSpare
> > 1 4 0
> Yes, this will continue to work. The RAID1 code still uses
> just the one row for everything. Removing the row bits will
> be just fine. (I just made a similar config in a "norow" environment,
> and will test it a bit more to make sure, but so far it's not had a
> single problem.))
> Greg Oster
Question (if I may ask): does the "rows" concept have to do with RAID
setups like RAID0+1 or RAID1+0 (mirrors of stripe sets and stripes of
mirror sets respectively)? Is the "2-D" concept for configuring subsets
of disks and then combining those subests or is this completely unreleated?