David O'Brien wrote: > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:27:07AM +0100, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote: > >>Lanny Baron <lnb_at_FreeBSDsystems.COM> writes: >> >>>That is correct. ad0 and ad1 are subdisks of respective ar* >> >>it is *not* correct - ad0 and ad1 should not be shown when they are >>members of an active array, as any attempt to partition and label them >>directly is likely to corrupt the array. > > > older ATA didn't show the members of an active array. ATAng started > showing them. :-( I asked sos about it and he said they'ed be exposed > for a while until he finished some things he was working on. > > Maybe sos can update us on the state of things and the plans. Real old ATA (4.x) showed them and when they left in preATAng there was lots of complaining. I see that now we are back to the old (initial) behavior complains are showing up again :/ There are problems like what to do with disks that contains a valid RAID config but that RAID cannot be completed and used, how are such disks supposed to show up ? Anyhow the ataraid code was about to change, but then hope started to show again that we could loose ccd/vinum/raidframe/ataraid and get one proper GEOM implementation, that would make life perfect (about RAID at least) so I've put further work on ataraid on the backburner since I dont want duplicate work in there (we have PLENTY of that already).... However since some of our worst armchair generals and whiners are involved in this, I dont expect an outcome soon, if any at all ;) -- -SørenReceived on Sat Jan 31 2004 - 02:29:18 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:41 UTC