8.04-1 won't boot from degraded raid

Soren Hansen soren at ubuntu.com
Tue Aug 26 18:22:35 UTC 2008

On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 11:10:49AM -0500, Michael Hipp wrote:
>> "Just Work" in this context means different things to different
>> people.  To me, "Just Work" means that it above all doesn't corrupt
>> my data. To others, it might mean "start the sucker no matter what,
>> so that I can get on with my life". Neither is a malfunction, so both
>> options should be available, but spare me the "broken" and "not
>> functional" babble.
> In every single answer above you are focused on the fact that it does
> fine for the use case where you don't want it to boot upon failure.

Except, of course, where I don't (as quoted above). I've never said my
use case it the only correct one.  I'm just saying that there are use
cases where the current behaviour is completely correct.

> As noted in the page [1] linked to by Dustin's blog, that's a valid
> use case. (A bit hard for a guy like me to imagine. But valid
> nevertheless.)

As I said: I value data integrity over uptime. I'm quite anal with my

> What you don't seem to grasp is that it utterly fails at the other use case
> where the system needs to boot regardless. 

I'm completely aware that you want it to do something that it currently
doesn't do. I'm merely pointing out that carrying on the way you do is
not helping anything. Please try to be constructive.

> You seem to be declaring that use case as being one that's invalid
> (evidently because *I*  prefer it as you offer no other.

I don't know what you mean by "offer no other". I'm not going to lie and
tell you that Ubuntu does something that it doesn't.

> It's broken because the second use case doesn't work. And evidently can't be 
> made to work under any circumstances. 

I'm not going to continue this discussion. I tried to explain that the
current state has validity. I tried to explain that other use cases are
valid as well, and work has been done to support those. That's hardly
saying that it can't be made to work under any circumstance. If it is,
we're speaking a very different language, and that just further supports
the pointlessness of continuing discussion.

> Tell me, once again, what word you use to describe a system where a
> documented valid use case utterly fails? 

I'm not sure. "Not suitable for my needs", perhaps. Not necessarily
"broken", that's for sure.   Let's take a completely different example:
It's a completely valid use case to be able to control Ubuntu server
using nothing but voice commands.  At the moment, that's not supported.
That doesn't make Ubuntu server's user interface broken.

And no, I'm not saying that wanting to boot with a degraded raid array
is as common a use case as wanting to use voice commands to control
Ubuntu server. It's just an example.

> It is not functional. It is broken.

Not so. It's working. Simply not in the exact way you want it to. If we
applied this terminology more globally, I'm convinced you'd find that
*every* single piece of software in Ubuntu (or the entire world) is not
functional, but broken.

> For that (seemingly, to me, more common) use case of wanting the
> server to do what servers do and run.

I acknowledge the validity of your use case, just as I did in my
previous e-mail.

Soren Hansen               | 
Virtualisation specialist  | Ubuntu Server Team
Canonical Ltd.             | http://www.ubuntu.com/

More information about the ubuntu-server mailing list