NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote: > with 1.x metdata there is no "standard size" for bitmaps. Okay, I was just not sure about superblock-updates and things like that. > mdadm chooses an amount of space to reserve based roughly on the > size of the device. > It doesn't take into about the chunksize and alignment and so push the > data region to the very end of the device as suggested, though that > would not be particularly hard to do I suspect. It would not be hard to implement but I'm not sure about all the side-effects it has. Some easy ones are: 1. it breaks backwards-compatibility especially in the --assume-clean RAID-reconstruction case 2. it may harm when the array shall be grown in the future (i.e. to bigger components) by means of a reduction of the grown device's netto capacity compared to the unaligned case So if you (or somebody else) intend to do it, please don't make it default. regards Mario -- <eckes> wenn die nsa spam filtern wuerde... <Neral> einfach china kappen *** Signoff: Chinah (ix.irc.at linz.irc.at) -- 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
