Neil Brown wrote: > In short, reducing a raid5 to a particular size isn't something that > really makes sense to me. Reducing the amount of each device that is > used does - though I would much more expect people to want to increase > that size. Think about the poor people! :-) Those who can't afford to buy a new disk after a failure but can give up some free space. I actually don't think that that scenario is /highly unlikely/ to occur? And also for the sake of symmetry: If growing is allowed- why should not shrinking be just as valid? Neil Brown wrote: > If Paul really has a reason to reduce the array to a particular size > then fine. I'm mildly curious, but it's his business and I'm happy > for mdadm to support it, though indirectly. But I strongly suspect > that most people who want to resize their array will be thinking in > terms of the amount of each device that is used, so that is how mdadm > works. I agree with you here- keep the parameters "low level". In that way the administrator (users use a GUI) have more control over the operation at hand. (kmdadm anyone? :-)) -- Henrik Holst - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
