siretart at ubuntu.com
Mon Sep 17 15:52:25 BST 2007
Scott James Remnant <scott at ubuntu.com> writes:
> 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 ;)
> Since this stuff is being actively fixed both by other distributions and
> Upstream, I think it would be premature to make a TB decision at this
> point since our decision could be different to what gets implemented
Err, Scott, excuse-moi, but are you seriously talking here about system
boot behavior, or how udev-mdadm-lvm-cryptsetup integration should be
I have serious doubts that upstream should decide if a system is able to
boot with a degraded array or not. This should rather be a decision for
the ubuntu-server team, shouldn't it?
Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4
More information about the ubuntu-devel