On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 17:27:58 +0200, Roberto Ragusa <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Ok, I know that, but I suppose that the refusal to upgrade on a degraded > array would be "do not do something dangerous when the array is not really > in good conditions" and then a (debatable) assumption that 4 mirrors out > of 5 is an emergency condition. I think the concern is that if the other device shows back up later something bad could happen. (Such as mirroring from the newly put back device over the top of the fresh install.) I don't know if that is a real possibility, but I can see why people might have concern. > That is another unreasonable limitation. > For example, mdadm is a little petulant if I try to create a 1-disk RAID-1, > but it finally does it if I force it enough. Well I think so, but the anaconda guys don't. > Was there a motivation for "wontfix"? > I'm curious to listen what kind of logic has been applied. They don't consider a 1 element raid 1 array as a valid array and are worried people will think they have redundancy when they don't. The bug below gives a pretty good look at the various viewpoints. I think I have seem some other similar bugs, if you want to look for more: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=188314 Also there was a thread on the anaconda list: http://www.redhat.com/archives/anaconda-devel-list/2008-November/msg00233.html -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
