From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 15 18:20:01 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@smarthost.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59229A49 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 18:20:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206c::16:87]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 304FCD5E for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 18:20:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.6/8.14.6) with ESMTP id r0FIK19f063520 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 18:20:01 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.6/8.14.6/Submit) id r0FIK1wa063519; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 18:20:01 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 18:20:01 GMT Message-Id: <201301151820.r0FIK1wa063519@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: Alexander Motin Subject: Re: bin/166589: atacontrol(8) incorrectly treats RAID10 and 0+1 the same X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: Alexander Motin List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 18:20:01 -0000 The following reply was made to PR bin/166589; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Alexander Motin To: Allen Landsidel Cc: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: bin/166589: atacontrol(8) incorrectly treats RAID10 and 0+1 the same Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 20:10:56 +0200 On 15.01.2013 19:09, Allen Landsidel wrote: > The atacontrol(8) man page and handbook page on RAID (19.4.2) both > discuss (briefly) hardware RAID and say it is supported. > > It seems you're calling all the southbridge controllers "software" > RAID? That terminology in my experience is used to describe gmirror/ccd > disks without a RAID controller or RAID BIOS. Some people call southbridge RAID as "FakeRAID", as middle point between hardware and purely software. I just don't very like that work. From ataraid/graid perspective all southbridge RAID "functions" are just some metadata format specification, that, if followed, will allow BIOS to boot system from the array. There is no any real hardware acceleration in southbridge RAIDs. There are indeed some recent SATA chips from Marvell and some others that really implement some RAID levels in hardware, but they have nothing to do with atacontrol and their volumes look to the system as usual disk. I haven't even seen documentation for their control interfaces to support that. > In any case, the difference and PR still remain. > > A 6 disk RAID-10 controller ((1,2),(3,4),(5,6)) with failed disks 1, & 4 > (or even 1,3 & 5) will boot and allow you to do your 'magic.' > > A 6 disk RAID0+1 controller ((1,2,3),(4,5,6)) with failed disks 1 & 4 > will not boot the OS. > > Misrepresenting one as the other in the software is wrong. You may have some point from the boot side, but do you have reliable information about which controllers support RAID0+1 and which RAID10? There is often much more marketing and traditions in public papers then real technical data. Also, if user got single failure in RAID10, it should not feel much more comfortable then if it would be RAID0+1, as second failure still can destroy the data. If second failure happened and BIOS really implements RAID0+1 and unable to boot, all that required is replace failed disks, boot from any FreeBSD install disk and run rebuild from the command line. > On 1/15/2013 11:35, Alexander Motin wrote: >> Please, be my guest to show me where atacontrol(8) controls any hardware >> RAID controller, or anything except ataraid(4) at all. -- Alexander Motin