----- Original Message ----- From: "Benjamin Close" <Benjamin.Close_at_clearchain.com> > Perhaps a lesson as developers we should take from this, is to put a > warning in ata about raid5. It's fooled Garret into believing he had a > raid5, how many others are also using ata believing their raid5 is a > raid5. We should warn people in the future rather than just saying 'its > in the docs'. A kernel warning at attach is much more visible. Although it is more visible, personally I would prefer it to just fail instead of proceeding. RAID5 is not RAID5 without parity so why even allow it to continue and hence risk such an unrecoverable situation? Regards Steve ================================================ This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of misdirection, the recipient is prohibited from using, copying, printing or otherwise disseminating it or any information contained in it. In the event of misdirection, illegible or incomplete transmission please telephone +44 845 868 1337 or return the E.mail to postmaster_at_multiplay.co.uk.Received on Sun Jun 29 2008 - 12:43:02 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:32 UTC