From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932498AbWAQOEZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jan 2006 09:04:25 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932503AbWAQOEY (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jan 2006 09:04:24 -0500 Received: from smtpout.mac.com ([17.250.248.70]:48581 "EHLO smtpout.mac.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932498AbWAQOEX (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jan 2006 09:04:23 -0500 In-Reply-To: <43CCD453.9070900@tls.msk.ru> References: <20060117174531.27739.patches@notabene> <43CCA80B.4020603@tls.msk.ru> <20060117095019.GA27262@localhost.localdomain> <43CCD453.9070900@tls.msk.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Cc: sander@humilis.net, NeilBrown , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Steinar H. Gunderson" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Kyle Moffett Subject: Re: [PATCH 000 of 5] md: Introduction Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 09:03:43 -0500 To: Michael Tokarev X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Jan 17, 2006, at 06:26, Michael Tokarev wrote: > This is about code complexity/bloat. It's already complex enouth. > I rely on the stability of the linux softraid subsystem, and want > it to be reliable. Adding more features, especially non-trivial > ones, does not buy you bugfree raid subsystem, just the opposite: > it will have more chances to crash, to eat your data etc, and will > be harder in finding/fixing bugs. What part of: "You will need to enable the experimental MD_RAID5_RESHAPE config option for this to work." isn't bvious? If you don't want this feature, either don't turn on CONFIG_MD_RAID5_RESHAPE, or don't use the raid5 mdadm reshaping command. This feature might be extremely useful for some people (including me on occasion), but I would not trust it even on my family's fileserver (let alone a corporate one) until it's been through several generations of testing and bugfixing. Cheers, Kyle Moffett -- There is no way to make Linux robust with unreliable memory subsystems, sorry. It would be like trying to make a human more robust with an unreliable O2 supply. Memory just has to work. -- Andi Kleen