On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 4:48 AM, Neil Brown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tuesday May 19, dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx wrote: >> On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 2:46 PM, raz ben yehuda <raziebe@xxxxxxx> wrote: > - Surely RAID0 is (like LVM) just a legacy idea until we get sensible > file systems that actually understand multiple devices and do all > this stuff for you are a more sensible level - so why are we > busting a gut(*) to make RAID0 work well?? Answer is of course > that no-one has made a sensible file system yet. (well... maybe zfs > or btrfs, not sure) "Compatibility" is another cause of the abdominal pressure. See the single drive to raid0 migrations supported by the Windows driver: http://www.intel.com/support/chipsets/imsm/sb/cs-020674.htm > So: lots of thoughts, some pointing in different directions. > But I'm not against reshape code appearing in RAID0 providing it is > well designed, maintainable, reliable, and doesn't slow down normal > RAID0 processing. I suspect we can get there. Nod. Thanks, Dan -- 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
