On 04/30/2009 10:22 AM, R P Herrold wrote: > ... > To respond to 'the consensus ... overwhelmingly' remark, the > mice also overwhelmingly voted to bell the cat. Counting > noses does not make a bad answer more correct; using raid > rather than flat RO /boot partitions is still less robust > "less robust" != "bad answer" ;-) > >> so that's where it is now. Would be glad to add a footnote >> with your POV, or feel free to do so yourself. >> > > No, when it irritates me enough that the clueless newbies who > don't read and don't research are not helped by yet another > writeup not to read, and keep coming back for spoons, I may > add a Method B subsection. Or more likely ignore what I > consider a bad support method and point to our rebuild of > upstreams doc's > I remain unconvinced that replicating documentation, and > adding places for entropy to rot in a wiki is a win. I'd > upstream the change, instead, as there is NO CentOS specific > aspect here. Sadly, it's more than the "newbies" that get this wrong. Getting started is still hard. Understanding and wisdom takes time. Many people don't even know how to start or search for what they need. How can one find the words for something that is not understood? That's more rhetorical than anything else. I, for one, find an explicit howto for CentOS comforting. That sure makes the "centos raid setup" google search pretty easy. It lends credibility to the idea that CentOS is more than a knock-off RHEL. Part of this situation seems (to me) to be more of a blurring of backup -vs- RAID. Both are good and have a place. Either by itself is non-optimal. Sadly, neither are capable on my laptops or my m-itx cases etc. Rejoice in divergence of opinions. I still want to see the mdadm resync'ing or "parity scrub" info added somewhere :-) pjwelsh
