Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Bill Davidsen wrote:
I like 1.2, I feel it's least likely to suffer collateral damage, and
the problems it causes seem to result in the type of behavior you
mention aboue, the system says "Can't, won't, you don't know what
you're doing."
What about adding a new v1.3 superblock which basically has 4
superblocks, an old 1.x superblock residing at <end>-<v1.0 superblock
size> (new location), and then pointers to this block residing where
1.0, 1.1 and 1.2 superblocks would normally be? Wouldn't that solve
"everybodys" problem by making it easier to find the superblock
regardless of what might have happened (drive size changed because of
3ware, someone installed mbr on the drive etc).
Is it because it's early in the morning and I haven't had coffee, or is
that starting to sound like raid-1 with superblocks? I just have to feel
that it would increase the chances of something "looking like" a
superblock, but wasn't. Then we could have reshape of superblocks in
--grow, all in all that idea feels as though it's inviting them to be
different. Imagine an array with partitions, each of which is in an
array (like raid-1+0) with superblocks everywhere.
I'm sure other people will have thoughts on this, but given the problems
we have with mismatch_cnt in mirrors, I wouldn't trust them to stay the
same. And all would have to be updated, of course, makes for much disk
writing.
--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>
"We can't solve today's problems by using the same thinking we
used in creating them." - Einstein
--
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
