On Jun 27, 2012, at 11:20 AM, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: > On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 10:37:11AM -0700, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: >> >> On Jun 26, 2012, at 10:37 AM, John Baldwin wrote: >>> >>> GPT really wants the backup header at the last LBA. I know you can set it, >>> but I've interpreted that as a way to see if the primary header is correct >>> or >>> not. It seems to me that GPT tables created in this fashion (inside a GEOM >>> provider) will not work properly with partition editors for other OS's. >>> I'm >>> hesitant to encourage the use of this as I do think putting GPT inside of a >>> gmirror violates the GPT spec. >> >> Agreed. > > Guys. This doesn't violate the GPT spec in any way. The spec is > narrow-minded if it talks only about raw disks, but you should think > about gmirror as pseudo-hardware RAID.
I'm sorry, but this is a contradiction. If it doesn't violate the spec, then the spec is not narrow-minded on the grounds of what we're discussing. If the spec *is* narrow-minded then obviously it doesn't capture our scenario, which means that we're violating the spec. Clearly we're not discussing anything that falls well within the spec, or is undebatable. This makes the whole topic dangerous anyway. When you're in the grey area (this is only for argument's sake -- we're in violation for sure) you're opening yourself up to compatibility problems. Should we deliberately go there? -- Marcel Moolenaar mar...@xcllnt.net _______________________________________________ firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"