On 29Jun, 2008, at 16:24 , Steven Hartland wrote: > > ----- 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? Well, this has been rehashed many times before, it has been disabled, put a warning in the boot log, warning in the docs, all 3 was the favorite at the time it was done. I'm all ears for what the decision might be this time, just get consensus and I'll flip the right switch. -SørenReceived on Sun Jun 29 2008 - 14:09:50 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:32 UTC