On Wed, 2011-11-16 at 15:00 -0500, Tom H wrote: > On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 10:53:17 -0800 > > Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 2011-11-16 at 10:29 -0600, David Lehman wrote: > >> > On Wed, 2011-11-16 at 09:42 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > >> > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 21:42:40 -0600, > >> > > Chris Adams <cmadams@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > > > Old-grub also didn't support newer Linux-md metadata formats, > >> > > > so that should be explicitly mentioned (I don't know about > >> > > > grub2). > >> > > > >> > > grub1 supports md raid version 1.0 metadata. (That's the new one > >> > > with the meta data at the end of the partition.) > >> > > >> > Right. grub1 supports 0.90 and 1.0. grub2 supports 0.90, 1.0, 1.1, > >> > 1.2 AFAIK. > >> > >> So, summary: with grub2 we should actually be able to support /boot on > >> RAID-0, RAID-1 or RAID-5, metadata 0.90, 1.0, 1.1 or 1.2? Is that > >> accurate? > > > > When I upgraded my storage box and had to rebuild the /boot, I first > > tried 1.2 metadata, but it did not seem to work. So, I went back to > > 0.90 and it worked fine. We may want to confirm the support for 1.2 > > before commiting to support it. > > Debian and Ubuntu default to metadata v1.2 and grub2 can boot fine. > It's a weird, Fedora-specific problem. Debian and Ubuntu have a somewhat more mature grub2 package with more patches, since they've been using it longer. Our grub2 is actually somewhat closer to the last upstream release, but that seems to mostly be a bad thing. =) -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
