It works. Translation: It has worked (mostly) for me. (A few times) (Seems like Theo has a good quote about gcc)
Boris Goldberg wrote: Hello guys, Thursday, July 4, 2013, 12:40:50 PM, Nick Holland wrote: >> If the softraid is so raw yet, why the old good RAIDFrame was removed >> starting the 5.2? It works just fine for me. Big volumes rebuilds take a >> long while, but it's something working. NH> That's quite a leap from "RAID 5 is not ready for use" to "softraid is NH> so raw". RAID5 is one discipline of several that isn't complete. RAID0 NH> is ready for use, RAID1 is ready for use, crypto is ready for use. I've tried to use the nicer word. "Not fully functional" and "raw" are synonyms. NH> It is also quite a leap to call old RAIDframe "good". NH> It was horribly old, unmaintained code, which wasn't well loved by NH> developers when it was fresh and current. NH> Your assumptions are wrong. I am not assuming, I'm talking from experience. It works. I can install to it (after a small tweak in the script). I boot from it (after a small tweak in the code to pick up swap on raid). It continues to work if one disk fails. It repairs (automatically if you replace the disk and boot - doing much better job than md from Linux). In other words - it's fully functional with some flaws. "Fully functional" is the key expression here. Is the RAIDFrame old? Yes, but old isn't necessary bad if it's working. Did it need a replacement? Yes if no one was willing to maintain it. Did you need to kill it *before* the replacement is ready? Definitely no. Could you, please, return the RAIDframe support until the softraid is ready? -- Best regards, Boris mailto:bo...@twopoint.com
