(The reply from Christian Pernegger below is the part of his reply to #377504 that relates to RAID setup.)
-------------------------------- > Your [partitionable md] naming scheme seems extremely non-standard to > me. As indicated before, please provide some references to convince us > that it should be supported. >From the mdadm man page, DEVICE NAMES section: "The standard names for partitionable arrays (as available from 2.6 onwards) is one of /dev/md/dNN or /dev/md_dNN. Partition numbers should be indicated by added "pMM" to these [...]" As for supported, why shouldn't they be? It's a regular partitionable block device, just like /dev/sda or /dev/hda. If partman needs a major update just to support block devices with new names the design is rather questionable IMHO. If partman is only intended for the most common cases that's fine, but then the (expert) user needs another way to partition that is recognized as such by the installer. > > having two ways to setup RAID, with the obvious one not working for > > root-on-RAID is confusing. > > Which means you probably did not read the installation guide on the > subject? What has the installation guide got to do with this? I stand by my original point, which is that having access to mdcfg from partman and from the main menu, with different dependencies is confusing. Logically the md management belongs to partitioning -- why not remove the main menu entry? > > 3) mdcfg should support bitmaps > > You'll > have to be more specific though as to what exactly is wanted and for > which RAID levels. Most of us are not RAID experts. Insert a checkbox somewhere "[x] create with internal bitmap (can speed up rebuilds)" and if checked add the option "--bitmap internal" to the mdadm command line when creating the array. Works for 1 and 5 at least, probably for all redundant levels. The way I understand it it's a RAID-level journal -- the bitmap is used to mark out-of-sync parts of an array so only those need to be resynced in case of a power failure, etc. > > How about grouping eligible partitions with approximately the same > > size together on one line, to make it easier to select the correct > > disks? > > Nice suggestion. We could at least list the size in the dialog. Yes, that's probably easier to do. Nice to finally agree on something :) > > 5) mdcfg creates arrays out-of-order > > Could it be that the naming was influenced by the presence of old > superblocks? Possibly. If I can reproduce it with clean disks I'll get back to you. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
