Re: f29 bootloader changes / raid1 installs + efi

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

 



On 15/06/18 22:50, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"KM" == Kyle Marek <psppsn96@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

KM> I can't remember what else I discovered in reading the manual
KM> last. Do you know if there are any other discovery/identification
KM> limitations to the old superblocks?

I don't think there are any in the context of having a small RAID1 ESP
across not too many devices.  The 0.9 format which anaconda uses is
limited to 28 devices (and 4TB, but that's obviously not a problem).  I
don't really see why it couldn't use the 1.0 format, really.  There is
no difference between the 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2 formats besides the location
on the disk.

I have a machine that has a raid1 md for the ESP using 1.0 metadata
and it's never caused any problems.

I didn't realise the installer did it automatically now though - that
machine was setup when the installer wouldn't even let you do it
manually so I had to set it up as raid post install.

Tom

--
Tom Hughes (tom@xxxxxxxxxx)
http://compton.nu/
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/PDS3VLY7UXCNQMA4QJKSGAVFTHMATWET/




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux