Alasdair G Kergon wrote:
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 02:14:05PM -0400, Phillip Susi wrote:
So you are saying that dmraid should build 3 tables: 1 for the bulk of
the array, 1 for only the last stripe, and 1 linear to connect them?
No. 1 table. 2 consecutive targets with different stripe sizes, if that's
how the data is actually laid out.
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.
the only problem comes from the last
stripe. How else could you map the last stripe other than laying down x
sectors onto y drives as x / y sectors on each drive in sequence?
Depends whether or not you give precedence to the stripe size.
The underlying device might be much larger - dm doesn't know or care - and
the intention of userspace might have been to truncate a larger striped
device part-way through one of the stripes - an equally reasonable thing to
do.
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. In any case, this is not something you can
do now, so the fact that you could not do it then either does not seem
to be a good argument against allowing partial tails.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
