> Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 17:48:22 +0100
> From: Arno Wagner <arno@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> I like the end, because it is clear and far away. It is also what
> md-RAID for superblock 0.90 does.
Doesn't that increase the chances of mdraid 0.90 stepping on your own
"far away" header?
> Non-redudancy during resize is not an issue, as anybody sane will
> only resize with a header-backup done before. Insane people will
> manage to screw up anyways, nothing we can do about that. Resize
> is a dangerous operation, no way around that. We can prevent
> people from hosing their LUKS container when creating filesysems
> on it though, or partition sectors or the like.
As long as whatever redundancy gets added doesn't eliminate the
ability to do an -online- grow, I don't care. It's when people
start saying "disallow online resize -because of- the redudancy"
that I start questioning the wisdom of the entire concept, and
that's why I spoke up at all.
(Note that I don't care so much re online -shrink-, because ext4
at least can't do that either.)
_______________________________________________
dm-crypt mailing list
dm-crypt@xxxxxxxx
http://www.saout.de/mailman/listinfo/dm-crypt
