On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 09:36 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > Jeremy Katz wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 11:26 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > >> Jeremy Katz wrote: > >>> On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 18:58 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > >>>> You are right studying the code further this does indeed happen. And installing > >>>> to the first sector of the raid set partitions should be fine, assuming that > >>>> the disk has a dos like mbr which just bootstraps to the bootsector of the > >>>> active partition, but what if the disk does not have a valid mbr? > >>> This has come up from time to time. One answer is that if we don't > >>> detect something that looks like an MBR and we're doing this (or any > >>> install /boot partition type installs), we should overwrite with a > >>> "real" MBR. The problem is that this could trample over some other boot > >>> loaders which has been something we haven't been willing to do in the > >>> past. Maybe we should pop up a warning and default to doing so, but > >>> give a way out if the user knows that they have a valid reason. Even > >>> though I hate those sorts of things :/ > >> I vote for just defaulting to installing on the MBR even in the raid1 case, if > >> the user wants the redundancy one gets from installing into the mdraid > >> partition, they can still easily select that. The user needs to have either a > >> special BIOS, or needs to modify the BIOS settings and / or remove the disk > >> when it died, which all require a very experienced user. I don't think it is to > >> much to ask this special group of users to change the selection from install to > >> mbr to install to partition during install if they want the additional > >> redundancy this gives. > > > > That is a major change from what the behavior has been essentially > > forever. And it's the sort of change that leads to downtime and admin > > cursing. I really don't think that just installing to one MBR by > > default if you're doing a RAID'd /boot is the intent or the desire... if > > we're going to default to doing the MBR, then we need to do similar bits > > to ensure that there's a boot record installed on both MBRs. > > Ok then how about still defaulting to the old behavior, but atleast allow > installing to the MBR in the raid1 case (which we currently do not allow)? Note > I don't have much of an opinion on this either way, I'm just trying to fix: 217176 I'm okay with allowing it. I think it probably does make sense to also do the check for if there's something MBR-looking on the MBR and ask if not. It won't be a great check, but I suspect at the granularity that it gets seen, it'll be good enough Jeremy _______________________________________________ Anaconda-devel-list mailing list Anaconda-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
