Jonathan Brassow [jbrassow@xxxxxxxxxx] wrote: > My general feeling is that it is better to do in userspace, but this is > only because I think there is so much improvement to be done in the mirror > DSO - transient fault handling being one of those areas. If you all can > get your benefits of multi-log, while I get my benefits of an improved DSO, > then I am very happy. > > That being said, there may also be merit in the kernel approach. I haven't > tried to think through all the nasty cases where log devices and mirror > devices overlap. For example, I want a 3-way mirror with a 2-way redundant > mirror log and I only have 3 physical disks. If I get a failure on a > device that contains both log and leg, how are the failures going to be > handled? It could get difficult with the layering... The log mirror would be out-of-sync but should/would still continue to operate. The leg mirror would be out-of-sync as well. Depending on how it is configured, the log mirror may go to linear/single device mode. Thank you Jonathan for your comments. --Malahal. -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
