wasabi at larvalstage.net
Fri Sep 14 19:38:29 BST 2007
Well, I don't have anything to add to the conversation except:
-1 on the config question. =)
On Fri, 2007-09-14 at 09:58 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> 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?
More information about the ubuntu-devel