Mark Linimon wrote:
But, in the real world of software engineering, He Who Breaketh It,
Must Fixeth It.
Your mileage may vary.
Yes it vaires. In the real world He Who Reaketh It, will hire
someone who known what he is doing to fix the problem...
___
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
cut
/cut
I think for now the important thing is to get the people interested
on this collected on a mail-alias, and for them to discuss how the
can work together to make something happen. After that, try to define
something closer.
What about
Pawel Jakub Dawidek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm working on one geom class (called for now geom_raid) which will support
transformations like: concatenation, stripe (raid0), mirror (raid1), raid4
and raid5.
Isn't is more GEOMish to have a separate GEOM class for each transformation?
Tony.
--
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Robert Watson wrote:
I think the right strategy is to follow the minimalist approach now
(adopt the disk(9) API, rather than having Vinum generate character
devices) so that swap works on Vinum again, and so that when UFS moves
to speaking GEOM there's no loss of
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Lukas Ertl writes:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Robert Watson wrote:
I think the right strategy is to follow the minimalist approach now
(adopt the disk(9) API, rather than having Vinum generate character
devices) so that swap works on Vinum again, and so that when UFS
On Wednesday, 14 January 2004 at 22:32:32 +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Lukas Ertl writes:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Robert Watson wrote:
I think the right strategy is to follow the minimalist approach now
(adopt the disk(9) API, rather than having Vinum generate
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Greg 'groggy' Lehey
As much as I would hate to see RF and Vinum disappar from our
source tree, maybe what we need to do is to kick them both into
training-camp in p4 while you and Greg look the other way.
Hmm. I can't see why they have to disappear from the
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mark Linimon writes:
But, in the real world of software engineering, He Who Breaketh It,
Must Fixeth It.
If we are talking paid jobs, yes, then you can make rules like that
because with the salary you control resource allocation and
prioritization.
My real life
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 12:39:22PM +0100, Miguel Mendez wrote:
+ I started RAIDframe three years ago with the hope of bringing a proven
+ and extensible RAID stack to FreeBSD. Unfortunately, while it was made
+ to work pretty well on 4.x, it has never been viable on 5.x; it never
+ survived
I forgot to mention on rather important factor in this equation:
Er, this is the *only* important factor. IMHO, it made most of the
previous conversation be completely off-the-rails.
If nothing happens, vinum is going to break even more very soon.
No ... if you do a commit that changes the
If vinum means a lot to you, you should do something to get it above
that threshold: start debugging/coding, learn to code if need be,
donate money so somebody else can code if you can't do anything
else.
I don't use vinum so I have no stake in this.
OTOH I'm not announcing changes which
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 11:00:34AM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mark Linimon writes:
But, in the real world of software engineering, He Who Breaketh It,
Must Fixeth It.
If we are talking paid jobs, yes, then you can make rules like that
because with the
can find
better things to use their spare time on.
Isolated features with a small user-communities, things like vinum,
raidframe, appletalk, bluetooth, MAC and similar, needs to come
with developer resources for its own maintenance, and vinum currently
comes up short in this respect.
_THAT_
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Mark Linimon wrote:
If nothing happens, vinum is going to break even more very soon.
No ... if you do a commit that changes the code assumptions upon which
vinum was built, vinum will break. vinum is not going to magically
break by itself.
This gets back to a
On Sunday 11 January 2004 12:36 pm, Scott W wrote:
David Gilbert wrote:
Poul-Henning == Poul-Henning Kamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Poul-Henning In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Poul-Henning Greg 'groggy' Lehey writes:
Poul-Henning The reason I say this is that neither of you have the
On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 11:32, Wes Peters wrote:
A few years ago Perforce was working on a write-through cache so you could
have a local duplicate of the server environment, but I haven't seen that
work come out of the company. That would've rocked for our development
model.
They released
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mark Linimon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: If nothing happens, vinum is going to break even more very soon.
:
: No ... if you do a commit that changes the code assumptions upon
: which vinum was built, vinum will break. vinum is not going to
: magically
On Monday 12 January 2004 07:33, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dag-Erling
=?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?=
writes:
M. Warner Losh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Maybe this would be a good test-case for seeing how well it works?
Maybe not. We do need to run a few more
Scott Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
I'm having trouble seeing what RF does that Vinum (or at least a
properly GEOMified Vinum) can't do...
Please read the RAIDframe documents at http://www.pdl.cmu.edu/RAIDframe
before you ask again.
I have, long ago, and frankly
(Greg) agree to remove it from -current?
My proposal is to do just that with both vinum and raidframe until
one or possibly both are up to full strength again.
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer | BSD
On Sunday, 11 January 2004 at 12:08:24 +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 15:46:49 +1030
Greg 'groggy' Lehey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[missing attribution to phk]
I'd say lets kick them both into perforce and let whoever wants
their hands have a go at them.
For some
Scott Long wrote:
I started RAIDframe three years ago with the hope of bringing a proven
and extensible RAID stack to FreeBSD. Unfortunately, while it was made
to work pretty well on 4.x, it has never been viable on 5.x; it never
survived the introduction of GEOM and removal of the old disk
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Scott Long writes:
All,
I started RAIDframe three years ago with the hope of bringing a proven
and extensible RAID stack to FreeBSD. Unfortunately, while it was made
to work pretty well on 4.x, it has never been viable on 5.x; it never
survived the introduction
the
LVM role, while RAIDframe handles the RAID side well.
--
Brad Knowles, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania.
GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++): a C
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 00:12:57 +0100
Poul-Henning Kamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As much as I would hate to see RF and Vinum disappar from our
source tree, maybe what we need to do is to kick them both into
training-camp in p4 while you and Greg look the other way.
[...]
I'd say lets kick them
At 3:30 PM -0700 2004/01/10, Scott Long wrote:
It will probably never be an LVM stack, but I've also always
believed that LVM and RAID are related but separate layers.
Having looked at the RAIDframe documentation you referenced, it
strikes me that it cannot really move towards LVM
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Greg 'groggy' Lehey
writes:
As much as I would hate to see RF and Vinum disappar from our
source tree, maybe what we need to do is to kick them both into
training-camp in p4 while you and Greg look the other way.
Hmm. I can't see why they have to disappear from
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 15:46:49 +1030
Greg 'groggy' Lehey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm. I can't see why they have to disappear from the source tree, and
I don't see why Scott or I should have to look the other way. I don't
know about RAIDFrame, but Vinum still works for the most part
Scott == Scott Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scott Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
Scott Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I started RAIDframe three years ago with the hope of bringing a
proven and extensible RAID stack to FreeBSD.
I'm having trouble seeing what RF does that Vinum
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Gilbert writes:
That said, we need a strong and robust software raid.
And as long as we have something which mostly work there seems to
be insufficient motivation to make that happen.
Therefore my proposal to send both RF and Vinum in training camp in p4.
--
Poul-Henning == Poul-Henning Kamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Poul-Henning In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Poul-Henning Greg 'groggy' Lehey writes:
Poul-Henning The reason I say this is that neither of you have the
Poul-Henning time needed, and whoever picks up may have ideas, even
Poul-Henning
David Gilbert wrote:
In the p4 tree, we can easier add new talent to our developer
force and I am pretty sure that some sort of merry band of
developers would form around both RF and vinum there.
... now I thought I followed this list relatively well, but can
someone point me at what 'p4' is?
p4
On 01/11/04 12:13:36 +0100 Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Leidinger writes:
fine, but if I got it right, do you (Greg) agree to remove it from
-current?
My proposal is to do just that with both vinum and raidframe until
one or possibly both are up to full
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Poul-Henning Kamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Gilbert writes:
: That said, we need a strong and robust software raid.
:
: And as long as we have something which mostly work there seems to
: be insufficient motivation to
and raidframe until
one or possibly both are up to full strength again.
and I'm pretty sure, that you'll provide means to migrate
the vinum volumes on -current systems transparently and
in-place to regular partitions?
vinum (IMHO) is a quite valuable piece of software. I'm
using it quite
this wrong, please tell me and everything is fine,
but if I got it right, do you (Greg) agree to remove it from -current?
My proposal is to do just that with both vinum and raidframe until
one or possibly both are up to full strength again.
On behalf of people like me who are mere users, let me
David Gilbert wrote:
Poul-Henning == Poul-Henning Kamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Poul-Henning In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Poul-Henning Greg 'groggy' Lehey writes:
Poul-Henning The reason I say this is that neither of you have the
Poul-Henning time needed, and whoever picks up may
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Narvi writes:
oh yes - and please fix disklabel to support an arbirtary number of file
system per a disk or slice in the process, because otherwise it will
not be converting many setups.
We need to move to a different labeling format because bsdlabel has
a number of
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?=
writes:
M. Warner Losh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Maybe this would be a good test-case for seeing how well it works?
Maybe not. We do need to run a few more test-cases for things through
this scenario... I'm not sure this
All,
I started RAIDframe three years ago with the hope of bringing a proven
and extensible RAID stack to FreeBSD. Unfortunately, while it was made
to work pretty well on 4.x, it has never been viable on 5.x; it never
survived the introduction of GEOM and removal of the old disk layer.
I'm coming
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004, Scott Long wrote:
I started RAIDframe three years ago with the hope of bringing a proven
and extensible RAID stack to FreeBSD. Unfortunately, while it was made
to work pretty well on 4.x, it has never been viable on 5.x; it never
survived the introduction of GEOM
Scott Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I started RAIDframe three years ago with the hope of bringing a proven
and extensible RAID stack to FreeBSD.
I'm having trouble seeing what RF does that Vinum (or at least a
properly GEOMified Vinum) can't do...
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - [EMAIL
Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
Scott Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I started RAIDframe three years ago with the hope of bringing a proven
and extensible RAID stack to FreeBSD.
I'm having trouble seeing what RF does that Vinum (or at least a
properly GEOMified Vinum) can't do...
DES
Please read
Scott Long wrote:
All,
I started RAIDframe three years ago with the hope of bringing a proven
and extensible RAID stack to FreeBSD. Unfortunately, while it was made
to work pretty well on 4.x, it has never been viable on 5.x; it never
survived the introduction of GEOM and removal of the old disk
Alexander Leidinger wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 00:12:57 +0100
Poul-Henning Kamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As much as I would hate to see RF and Vinum disappar from our
source tree, maybe what we need to do is to kick them both into
training-camp in p4 while you and Greg look the other way.
[...]
is a waste of time. If working on RF is something that interests
you, then show your support and say so.
On Saturday, 10 January 2004 at 16:44:10 -0700, Scott Long wrote:
Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
Scott Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I started RAIDframe three years ago with the hope of bringing
On Sunday, 11 January 2004 at 0:12:57 +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Scott Long writes:
All,
I started RAIDframe three years ago with the hope of bringing a proven
and extensible RAID stack to FreeBSD. Unfortunately, while it was made
to work pretty well on 4
comes from the universe where Spock
has a beard (sorry, Greg!).
Haha. :) I've had a similar love-hate relationship with vinum.
Scott Long had just about ported RAIDframe to FreeBSD, when the bits got
lost in a disk crash. So the rumor goes.
In any case, it's not like an obscene amount
On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 02:18:40PM -0500, Brandon D. Valentine wrote:
If you really want to play with RAIDframe I'd guess you'll have a much
easier time of it under NetBSD, where it is included with the operating
system. Getting it working under FreeBSD could be a lot of fun and you
might
!).
Scott Long had just about ported RAIDframe to FreeBSD, when the bits got
lost in a disk crash. So the rumor goes.
I guess you are talking about a kernel version of the code. I did
the original port of the user space version of the code; the patches
are still up on freebsd.org.
The kernel
Hi hackers,
The latest raidframe patch seems to be a bit date now, I'd like to know
if any of you has worked on getting it cleanly applying to a recent
4.5-STABLE (4.6-RC indeed) system of even 5.0-CURRENT tree. I'd like to
play with it and would like to know if someone has taken care
On Wed, 29 May 2002, Miguel Mendez wrote:
The latest raidframe patch seems to be a bit date now, I'd like to know
if any of you has worked on getting it cleanly applying to a recent
4.5-STABLE (4.6-RC indeed) system of even 5.0-CURRENT tree. I'd like to
play with it and would like to know
On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 01:15:10PM -0500, Brandon D. Valentine wrote:
Hi,
Is there a reason you can't use vinum(4)?
Yes, sir, there is one, like I said before, I want to play with
raidframe. Being a geek yourself you should understand that :-)
Cheers,
--
Miguel Mendez - [EMAIL
On Wed, 29 May 2002, Miguel Mendez wrote:
On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 01:15:10PM -0500, Brandon D. Valentine wrote:
Is there a reason you can't use vinum(4)?
Yes, sir, there is one, like I said before, I want to play with
raidframe. Being a geek yourself you should understand that :-)
I
54 matches
Mail list logo
