kees at ubuntu.com
Fri Sep 14 17:58:10 BST 2007
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:17:13AM -0400, Phillip Susi wrote:
> Kees Cook wrote:
> > So, the question is, which is the "least surprising"?
> > a) having the machine spew "I can't mount, here's what you can do...",
> > potentially endangering SLA and/or convenience.
> > b) mounting degraded, possibly due to poor timing, potentially endangering
> > partitions and/or data.
> > I personally think "b" is more surprising. I don't think it would be
> > hard to add another boot-time flag that means "auto-boot-when-degraded"
> > (which could be mentioned in the spew from "a").
> I find A to be a lot more surprising. The whole purpose of having a
> raid 5 setup is so the system will continue to operate just fine in the
> event of a drive failure. This includes booting up, which is often when
> failures occur. Sure, needlessly degrading the set isn't good, but the
> system does what it was designed to: keep running.
This is, I think, where we may need to turn to the tech board to get
a decision. Unless Scott trumps us ;)
I wonder if specifically asking the question during mdadm install would
be another way to handle this? Make it a debconf question that affects
the "default" initramfs behavior?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20070914/6d8e924d/attachment.pgp
More information about the ubuntu-devel