On Tue, 2020-05-26 at 11:07 -0700, Samuel Sieb wrote: > 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. I'm doing that now in fact, and it seems to be stable. poc _______________________________________________ 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
