>The users who still need partition tables
My main gripe was my impression that you wanted to do away entirely with
partition tables, which I am now taking as a misread.
I can certainly imagine a few different ways to have partition tables that
make more sense than the typical Wintel version.
>Maybe divide the raid into smaller disks?!
Absolutely, if that is your requirement. I have done this. It gives you the
usefulness of smaller disks with the speed and reliability of the RAID.
More importantly, The hardware should be considered largely immutable. For
reliability reason, I want the hardware to have its settings in the safest
manner possible, which means not taxing flash ram with too many rewrites. The
place for the logical layout of the disks is in the partition table on the
disk. One reason for this: what if the controller dies? In fact, I'd like the
controller to store its RAID setup on the disk as well. Maybe even on all of
them. Of course, if the partition equals the entire disk, great. The table
will be really short.
In fact, I want a number of backup partition tables (a la backup superblocks).
If you've ever had 70 people waiting to be able to do any work while you try
and restore a disk that had the partition table scribbled on, you appreciate
what I am saying.
-- The highest quality of attention we may give is love. http://www.hacksaw.org -- http://www.privatecircus.com -- KB1FVD- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 22:00:18 EST