Gadi Oxman wrote:
>
> On Sat, 18 Sep 1999, James Manning wrote:
>
> > [ Saturday, September 18, 1999 ] James Manning wrote:
> > > Ok, I wrote a patch that passes the ctl_table pointer of
> > > /proc/dev/md as the param for raid?_init, but noticed differing
> > > opinions on return values (although it doesn't much matter)
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > Well, I tried booting and it died with some SYSCTL() errors (figures :)
> > so if it looks like the patch at least has the right idea, let me know
> > and I'll try fixing up the problems... otherwise lemme know how you'd
> > like to see a settable raid1 balance implemented :)
> >
> > James
> > --
> > Miscellaneous Engineer --- IBM Netfinity Performance Development
>
> I originally planned to store the "sect_limit" value for each array
> at its RAID superblock (along with other array specific parameters),
> and write some utility which will allow viewing and changing the RAID
> superblock parameters.
>
> Gadi
Storing information like this in the superblock is an excellent idea.
But wouldn't that require stopping and restarting the array to change
the parameters? Perhaps sysctl should change the values dynamically,
then write the changes to the superblock to preserve them for the next
boot (or can it do that).
Of course, then someone will want them settable at create time and will
implement an ioctl, then someone else will want them settable while
offline, so they will write the set superblock utility, and in the end
we will have 3 ways of accomplishing the same thing, and they will all
have different limits and error handling.
Clay
