On 2011-06-24 01.39, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
What should be done about ccd(4) and raid(4)? They both seem
superseded in functionality by softraid(4), which also has much more
developer interest and active development.
Never used ccd(4) so can't comment on that, but RAIDframe (raid(4)) has
a
On Friday 24 June 2011, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Kenneth R Westerback
kwesterb...@rogers.com wrote:
I use neither but know people claim to be using one or the other,
but mostly raid(4), a.k.a. raidframe.
Then it sounds like the solution is to subtly break
Matthew Dempsky matt...@dempsky.org wrote:
What should be done about ccd(4) and raid(4)? They both seem
superseded in functionality by softraid(4), which also has much more
developer interest and active development.
Is softraid ready at all? I thought it was experimental, under
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 03:38:48PM +, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
Matthew Dempsky matt...@dempsky.org wrote:
What should be done about ccd(4) and raid(4)? They both seem
superseded in functionality by softraid(4), which also has much more
developer interest and active development.
On Saturday 25 June 2011, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
Matthew Dempsky matt...@dempsky.org wrote:
What should be done about ccd(4) and raid(4)? They both seem
superseded in functionality by softraid(4), which also has much more
developer interest and active development.
Is softraid ready
On Friday 24 June 2011, Benny Lofgren wrote:
On 2011-06-24 01.39, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
What should be done about ccd(4) and raid(4)? They both seem
superseded in functionality by softraid(4), which also has much more
developer interest and active development.
Never used ccd(4) so can't
On 2011-06-24 18.46, Joel Sing wrote:
On Friday 24 June 2011, Benny Lofgren wrote:
On 2011-06-24 01.39, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
What should be done about ccd(4) and raid(4)? They both seem
superseded in functionality by softraid(4), which also has much more
developer interest and active
What should be done about ccd(4) and raid(4)? They both seem
superseded in functionality by softraid(4), which also has much more
developer interest and active development.
Are there any users still using ccd(4) and/or raid(4) and unable to
upgrade to softraid(4)? Will anyone be up a creek if
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 04:39:19PM -0700, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
What should be done about ccd(4) and raid(4)? They both seem
superseded in functionality by softraid(4), which also has much more
developer interest and active development.
Are there any users still using ccd(4) and/or raid(4)
[+misc@, for users not subscribed to tech@]
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Matthew Dempsky matt...@dempsky.org wrote:
What should be done about ccd(4) and raid(4)? They both seem
superseded in functionality by softraid(4), which also has much more
developer interest and active development.
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Kenneth R Westerback
kwesterb...@rogers.com wrote:
I use neither but know people claim to be using one or the other,
but mostly raid(4), a.k.a. raidframe.
Then it sounds like the solution is to subtly break them so we can
smoke out these claimed users! ;)
In
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 07:44:52PM -0700, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Kenneth R Westerback
kwesterb...@rogers.com wrote:
I use neither but know people claim to be using one or the other,
but mostly raid(4), a.k.a. raidframe.
Then it sounds like the solution is
12 matches
Mail list logo
