--- Greg Oster <oster@cs.usask.ca> wrote: > Manuel Bouyer writes:
> > On Sat, Dec 20, 2003 at 10:51:06AM -0600, Greg Oster wrote:
> > > 
> > > I am therefore proposing to entirely remove from the kernel the
> > > feigned support for multiple rows.  Configuration files,
> component
> > > labels, etc. will all continue to have the "row" field, but this
> will
> > > end up getting hard-coded to "1 row" where needed, and "row 0"
> where a
> > > row value is still required.  Nothing wil change with respect to
> > > configuration of RAID sets. 
> /usr/include/dev/raidframe/raidframevar.h
> > > will be changed, but those changes will only be related to kernel
> > > internals, and none of the structures used for passing
> configuration
> > > information will change.
> > 
> > Hi,
> > would a raid1 with n*2 disks continue to works (e.g. something
> like:
> >            START array
> >            # numRow numCol numSpare
> >            1 4 0
> 
> Yes, this will continue to work.  The RAID1 code still uses 
> just the one row for everything.  Removing the row bits will
> be just fine. (I just made a similar config in a "norow" environment,
> 
> and will test it a bit more to make sure, but so far it's not had a 
> single problem.))
> 
> Later...
> 
> Greg Oster

Question (if I may ask): does the "rows" concept have to do with RAID
setups like RAID0+1 or RAID1+0 (mirrors of stripe sets and stripes of
mirror sets respectively)? Is the "2-D" concept for configuring subsets
of disks and then combining those subests or is this completely unreleated?