On 25/02/17 23:41, Phil Turmel wrote: >> Is there a sound technical reason not to go there, or is it simply a >> > case of "learn another tool for that job"? The less tools I have to know >> > the better, imho. > Um, no, imnsho. Learn new tools when you need them. I don't have a problem with that. All too often people use the tool they're familiar with when it's the wrong tool. But there's a reason they do that - it's a familiar tool! > > Linux raid has no formal mechanism to cleanly separate a mirror from a > running array, access it as a backup, and not risk corruption when > re-attaching it to the array. Most filesystems write to the partition > when mounting, even for read-only mounts. You cannot safely access the > disconnected member except via pure block reads. Because to do so doesn't make sense? Or because nobody's bothered to do it? I get grumpy when people implement corner cases without bothering to implement the logically sensible options - bit like those extremely annoying dialog boxes that give you three choices, "yes", "no", "yes to all". What about no to all? I feel like mirror-raid is perfect for doing backups. I take your point that linux hasn't implemented that feature (particularly well), but surely it's a feature that *should* be there. I know I know - "patches welcome" :-) Cheers, Wol -- 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
