Could you have a mode, though, where M = N at all times, so a user doesn't end up adding a new drive and get a nasty surprise? Chris Mason <chris.mason@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 06:35:30PM -0600, Marios Titas wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:27 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> >wrote: >> > Yet another boot loader support request. >> > >> > Right now btrfs' definition of "RAID-1" with more than two devices >is a >> > bit unorthodox: it stores on any two drives. "True RAID-1" would >> > instead store N copies on each of N devices, the same way an actual >> > RAID-1 would operate with an arbitrary number of devices. >> > >> > This means that a bootloader can consider a single device in >isolation: >> > if the firmware gives access only to a single device, it can be >booted. >> > Since /boot is usually a very small amount of data, this is a very >> > reasonable tradeoff. >> >> +1 >> >> In fact, the current RAID-1 should not have been called RAID-1 at >all, >> it is confusing. > >With the raid5/6 code, I'm changing raid1 (and raid10) to have a >configurable number of copies. So, you'll be able to have N copies on >M >drives, where N <= M. > >-chris -- Sent from my mobile phone. Please excuse brevity and lack of formatting. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
