[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: RAID levels not intuitive in anaconda GUI

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 04:39:46PM -0500, Máirín Duffy wrote:
> On 12/19/2012 04:26 PM, Marian Ganisin wrote:
> > On this screenshot (attached to original bug):
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=640017
> > 
> > First checkbox has label 'Redundancy', last checkbox has label 'Redundant'. In my understanding same terms. Additonally they aren't different by any means, just two equivalent checkboxes for 'redundancy' in same group.
> > Btw that 'RAID6' label visible on the screenshot does not bring any light to selected configuration.
> They're not in the same group. The first checkbox you're referring to is
> the Redundancy checkbox for data redundancy. The second one, you'll note
> in the screenshot, is indented under the 'Error detection (partity)'
> checkbox. It is a child of the error detection checkbox, and means
> redundant error detection / partity, not redundant data.

I think it is not surprise they are different from functional point of
view. However code is invisible for the user, he can not differentiate
based on this unless he reads code. UI makes the difference.  If we are
talking about UI, because that's what guides user, checkboxes are equivalent.

> I'm sorry that the two similar words confused you. Maybe we can indent
> the parity options a bit more so it's clearer they apply to error
> detection, or grey them out unless error detection is selected.

Yes, this is highly desirable to make that clear and understandable.
Still explicit mention about RAID levels would be even better.

> >>> * error detection is feature of all RAIDs but RAID0, levels can't be 
> >>> differentiated
> >>
> >> This is incorrect, Marian. Neither RAID0 or RAID1 have error detection. 
> >>
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID#Standard_levels
> > 
> > Linked section does not seem to mention error detection for any RAID
> > level at all (maybe following table, however that clearly states RAID1
> > is able to detect/tolerate failure of n-1 drives which is far away best
> > error detection/correction from all other levels).
> First of all, the user interface clearly identifies the error detection
> type we are talking about as "parity." The label for the option is
> "Error detection (parity)."

It is clear to you, you designed it and you know what you wanted to put
behind it.  For others it is _error_detection_ and as such it is highly
confusing. This is what I am trying to tell you. Please do not ignore
me, we are providing you look from different point of view. I believe
this is always valuable.

> The link I pointed you to states:
> "RAID 0 (block-level striping without parity "
> "In RAID 1 (mirroring without parity"

Use this wording and I won't complain, it will be clear to wider user
base. Keep RAID levels and you'll have a solution for Martin's bug report.

However anaconda is using completely different naming, maybe based on
this, but different. It does not help in orientation.

I asked my colleagues how to build RAID6, despite their rich experience
they didn't know and they needed to click some checkboxes and press
apply to see what is chosen.

I asked my colleagues if RAID10 has parity, the answer was: If it is
able to detect error, it has to have a parity.

> > This confusion is caused by insufficient description of my intention, that's my fault sorry for that. I'll try to correct it. I absolutely agree with initial reporter of reffered bug, Martin Banas, that common terminology is crucial for easy adoption of new RAID handling. In my opinion it is absolutely necessary to bring similar naming as other products providing RAID capability such as BIOS RAID, full featured RAID controllers or other operating systems. I am afraid that terminology introduced in new anaconda isn't used by any similar product and as such it tends to be highly confusing (it is highly confusing to me for all expressed reasons). Therefore I asked to show usage of approach also in other products. I hope it is much clearer now.
> You've completely lost me here. I'm sorry again that you apparently did
> not understand or read carefully what I wrote in the bug.

Read carefully and understood pretty well.

My team did lot's of testing of new anaconda. You won't find a man on
the earth who would do at least half of testing of what each of my
colleagues did.

We accepted new design and we have started to work on it. Simply because
we believe that each of us has same goal, we want to make better
product. We actively participate on that goal. During the testing we
figured out that new implementation of RAID definition does not have to
be best choice and we believe it is good idea to do some correction. It
would be really nice at least to accept our comments and to think about
that. Instead of that we are rejected with comments like: "you missed
idea; this is only your opinion; you rant!; and many more" You are happy
just because you can prove that _you_ are right. This really does not
match with my idea of good collaboration. :(

Please let's stop to argue who is wrong and who is right and simply try
to accept your QA as worthy counterpart. Once more, our mission goal is
exactly same.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]