On Mon, 2014-03-17 at 14:58 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > > I can't recall whether I dropped this intentionally or inadvertently, > > I'll try and check. But, of course, HW raid and BIOS RAID are really > > rather different cases from software RAID. > > Mmm, well I'm not sure what the failure vectors are for HW and BIOS > RAID. The hwraid case should just look and behave like an ordinary > single device. Yeah. The possible failure cases here, really, are 'the driver's bust' and 'the driver got left out of the initramfs', I think. I've put it back in for now, but we could probably live without it. It's kind of a PITA to test. (Though it was much *more* of a PITA before I figured out one of the SATA cables hooked up to my HW RAID controller was busted.) > The firmware RAID case starts out the same way at boot time, but then > becomes a variation of software raid, as it's implemented by mdadm, > the only difference being on-disk metadata format. Yes. This one can break in quite a few ways, and frequently does. It's an important one to test. Actually not all firmware RAID is implemented by mdadm; only Intel fwraid. Other forms of fwraid are implemented by dmraid (still). They're less common than they once were, but still around. > Looks like in Rawhide's installer Firmware RAID is listed in > specialized disks, which is different than hardware raid I think. IIRC, it shows up there but it usually *also* shows up as a 'regular' disk too, but I'd have to check again. I test it every cycle and then promptly forget the details. > Anyway, I see why they're tested separately. Yeah, completely different cases. I don't think hardware RAID has actually seen a failure since I joined RH, but it's at least possible that it could - though really just having a single 'hardware RAID' checkbox on the installation validation test matrix isn't a very sensible approach to testing it, it's a bit like having a 'Graphics Card' line in the same matrix. One graphics card works? OK, I guess we're good! :) > > We certainly need to cover SW RAID in the custom testing, you're right, > > it's an obvious miss. Not sure of the best way to approach it offhand. > > If you'd like to draft something up that'd be great, or else I'll try > > and do it. > > I think any raid layout is a small population of the user base. But I > also think there's broad benefit to resiliently bootable raid1, so it > makes sense for us to care about /boot, rootfs, and /home on raid1, > and hopefully refine it so that one day it'll work better on UEFI than > it does now. And then expand scope as resources permit. Yeah, straightforward two-disk RAID-0 and RAID-1 are probably the most obvious places to start. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
