On 5/26/20 4:15 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Mon, 2020-05-25 at 23:22 -0500, Gabriel Ramirez wrote:
On 5/25/20 5:23 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
Yes, I understand that. I still think the behaviour of mdadm in this
case is counter-intuitive. When I explicitly ask for the creation of an
array called /dev/md0 and the command first of all warns me that this
will (not "may") destroy the existing partition table and do I want to
proceed, then when I say yes apparently succeeds, I think I'm entitled
to think that /dev/md0 has been created, but it hasn't.
remember /dev is created at linux boot so the devices names are dynamic
(/dev/mdN)
Yes, that's true. However I'm talking about immediately after doing the
array creation. If /dev/md0 is not a valid name because it will be
destroyed on reboot, shouldn't mdadm warn me?
I think there's a suggested number in the raid metadata, but it's not
necessarily used. What would happen if you added two raid arrays with
the same number?
If you run "mdadm -E /dev/sdh1" where "sdh1" is a raid member, you can
see the metadata. There's a line with "Name : hostname:0" and I think
the ":0" part is the md number. But this raid array is actually at
md127. I have another one with :126 which is at md126.
However, you shouldn't be using /dev/md* in your fstab anyway, you
should be using the filesystem UUID.
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
