[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061013222237.GL17654@agk.surrey.redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 23:22:37 +0100
From: Alasdair G Kergon <agk@...hat.com>
To: Phillip Susi <psusi@....rr.com>
Cc: Alasdair G Kergon <agk@...hat.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Heinz Mauelshagen <mauelshagen@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: dm stripe: Fix bounds
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 04:47:59PM -0400, Phillip Susi wrote:
> One stripe table can only contain one stripe size, so to have two would
> require two tables, and a third table to tie them back together.
One device-mapper table can contain two concatenated stripe targets.
http://people.redhat.com/agk/talks/FOSDEM_2005/text6.html
> The entire idea of a stripe is that you are using multiple identical
> drives ( or partitions ), so it doesn't make any sense to be able to
> truncate one of the drives.
dmraid is not the only user of device-mapper striping. Userspace volume
managers may want to use all sorts of odd layouts quite legitimately.
> In any case, this is not something you can
> do now,
[Actually that's what the code did before this patch:-(]
> so the fact that you could not do it then either does not seem
> to be a good argument against allowing partial tails.
The arguments are (1) to avoid the ambiguity I've discussed and (2) to avoid
the additional complexity the in-kernel striped target would require
(calculating a stripe size for the end of the device to override the one
supplied), when it's so simple for userspace to specify exactly what it
requires by using two targets.
Alasdair
--
agk@...hat.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists