[dm-devel added for completeness] Hi Jeff, thanks for your thoughts. I agree this is a conversation worth having. On Tuesday June 2, jeff@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Neil Brown wrote: > > The significant change which justifies the new major version number is > > that mdadm can now handle metadata updates entirely in userspace. > > This allows mdadm to support metadata formats that the kernel knows > > nothing about. > > > > Currently two such metadata formats are supported: > > - DDF - The SNIA standard format > > - Intel Matrix - The metadata used by recent Intel ICH controlers. > > This seems pretty awful from a support standpoint: dmraid has been the > sole provider of support for vendor-proprietary up until this point. And mdadm has been the sole provider of raid5 and raid6 (and, arguably, reliable raid1 - there was a thread recently about architectural issues in dm/raid1 that allowed data corruption). So either dmraid would have to support raid5, or mdadm would have to support IMSM. or both? > > Now Linux users -- and distro installers -- must choose between software > RAID stack "MD" and software RAID stack "DM". That choice is made _not_ > based on features, but on knowing the underlying RAID metadata format > that is required, and what features you need out of it. If you replace the word "required" by "supported", then the metadata format becomes a feature. And only md provides raid5/raid6. And only dm provides LVM. So I think there are plenty of "feature" issues between them. Maybe there are now more use-cases where the choice cannot be made based on features. I guess things like familiarity and track-record come in to play there. But choice is a crucial element of freedom. > > dmraid already supports > - Intel RAID format, touched by Intel as recently as 2007 > - DDF, the SNIA standard format > > This obviously generates some relevant questions... > > 1) Why? This obviously duplicates existing effort and code. The only > compelling reason I see is RAID5 support, which DM lacks IIRC -- but the > huge issue of user support and duplicated code remains. Yes, RAID5 (and RAID6) are big parts of the reason. RAID1 is not an immaterial part. But my initial motivation was that this was the direction I wanted the md code base to move in. It was previously locked to two internal metadata formats. I wanted to move the metadata support into userspace where I felt it belonged, and DDF was a good vehicle to drive that. Intel then approached me about adding IMSM support and I was happy to co-operate. > > 2) Adding container-like handling obviously moves MD in the direction of > DM. Does that imply someone will be looking at integrating the two > codebases, or will this begin to implement features also found in DM's > codebase? I wonder why you think "container-like" handling moves in the direction of DM. I see nothing in the DM that explicitly relates to this. There was something in MD (internal metadata support) which explicitly worked against it. I have since made that less of an issue. All the knowledge of containers is really in lvm2/dmraid and mdadm - the user-space tools (and I do think it is important to be aware of the distinction between the kernel side and the user side of each system). So this is really a case of md "seeing" the wisdom in that aspect of the design of "dm" and taking a similar approach - though with significantly different details. As for integrating the two code bases.... people have been suggesting that for years, but I suspect few of them have looked deeply at the practicalities. Apparently it was suggested at the recent "storage summit". However as the primary md and dm developers were absent, I have doubts about how truly well-informed that conversation could have been. I do have my own sketchy ideas about how unification could be achieved. It would involve creating a third "thing" and then migrating md and dm (and loop and nbd and drbd and ...) to mesh with that new model. But it is hard to make this a priority where there are more practically useful things to be done. It is worth reflecting again on the distinction between lvm2 or dmraid and dm, and between mdadm and md. lvm2 could conceivably use md. mdadm could conceivably use dm. I have certainly considered teaching mdadm to work with dm-multipath so that I could justifiably remove md/multipath without the risk of breaking someone's installation. But it isn't much of a priority. The dmraid developers might think that utilising md to provide some raid levels might be a good thing (now that I have shown it to be possible). I would be happy to support that to the extent of explaining how it can work and even refining interfaces if that proved to be necessary. Who knows - that could eventually lead to me being able to end-of-life mdadm and leave everyone using dmraid :-) Will md implement features found in dm's code base? For things like LVM, Multipath, crypt and snapshot : no, definitely not. For things like suspend/resume of incoming IO (so a device can be reconfigured), maybe. I recently added that so that I could effect raid5->raid6 conversions. I would much rather this was implemented in the block layer than in md or dm. I added it to md because that was the fastest path, and it allowed me to explore and come to understand the issues. I tried to arrange the implementation so that it could be moved up to the block layer without user-space noticing. Hopefully I will get around to attempting that before I forget all that I learnt. > > 3) What is the status of distro integration efforts? I wager the distro > installer guys will grumble at having to choose among duplicated RAID > code and formats. Some distros are shipping mdadm-3.0-pre releases, but I don't think any have seriously tried to integrate the DDF or IMSM support with installers or the boot process yet. Intel have engineers working to make sure such integration is possible, reliable, and relatively simple. Installers already understand lvm and mdadm for different use cases. Adding some new use cases that overlap should not be a big headache. They also already support ext3-vs-xfs, gnome-vs-kde etc. There is an issue of "if the drives appear to have DDF metadata, which tool shall I use". I am not well placed to give an objective answer to that. mdadm can easily be told to ignore such arrays unless explicitly requested to deal with them. A line like AUTO -ddf -imsm in mdadm.conf would ensure that auto-assembly and incremental assembly will ignore both DDF and IMSM. > > 4) What is the plan for handling existing Intel RAID users (e.g. dmraid > + Intel RAID)? Has Intel been contacted about dmraid issues? What does > Intel think about this lovely user confusion shoved into their laps? The above mentioned AUTO line can disable mdadm auto-management of such arrays. Maybe dmraid auto-management can be equally disabled. Distros might be well-advise to make the choice a configurable option. I cannot speak for Intel, except to acknowledge that their engineers have done most of the work to support IMSM is mdadm. I just provided the infrastructure and general consulting. > > 5) Have the dmraid maintainer and DM folks been queried, given that you > are duplicating their functionality via Intel and DDF RAID formats? > What was their response, what issues were raised and resolved? I haven't spoken to them, no (except for a couple of barely-related chats with Alasdair). By and large, they live in their little walled garden, and I/we live in ours. NeilBrown -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
