From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932368AbWAQJuO (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jan 2006 04:50:14 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751346AbWAQJuN (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jan 2006 04:50:13 -0500 Received: from ookhoi.xs4all.nl ([213.84.114.66]:54440 "EHLO favonius.humilis.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751345AbWAQJuM (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jan 2006 04:50:12 -0500 Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 10:50:20 +0100 From: Sander To: Michael Tokarev Cc: NeilBrown , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Steinar H. Gunderson" Subject: Re: [PATCH 000 of 5] md: Introduction Message-ID: <20060117095019.GA27262@localhost.localdomain> Reply-To: sander@humilis.net References: <20060117174531.27739.patches@notabene> <43CCA80B.4020603@tls.msk.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <43CCA80B.4020603@tls.msk.ru> X-Uptime: 10:26:31 up 61 days, 25 min, 10 users, load average: 2.57, 2.20, 1.86 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Michael Tokarev wrote (ao): > NeilBrown wrote: > > Greetings. > > > > In line with the principle of "release early", following are 5 > > patches against md in 2.6.latest which implement reshaping of a > > raid5 array. By this I mean adding 1 or more drives to the array and > > then re-laying out all of the data. > > Neil, is this online resizing/reshaping really needed? I understand > all those words means alot for marketing persons - zero downtime, > online resizing etc, but it is much safer and easier to do that stuff > 'offline', on an inactive array, like raidreconf does - safer, easier, > faster, and one have more possibilities for more complex changes. It > isn't like you want to add/remove drives to/from your arrays every > day... Alot of good hw raid cards are unable to perform such reshaping > too. I like the feature. Not only marketing prefers zero downtime you know :-) Actually, I don't understand why you bother at all. One writes the feature. Another uses it. How would this feature harm you? Kind regards, Sander -- Humilis IT Services and Solutions http://www.humilis.net