On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, Neil Brown wrote:
> From 'man mdadm'
>
> -a, --auto{=no,yes,md,mdp,part,p}{NN}
> Instruct mdadm to create the device file if needed, possibly allocat-
> ing an unused minor number. "md" causes a non-partitionable array to
> be used. "mdp", "part" or "p" causes a partitionable array (2.6 and
> later) to be used. "yes" requires the named md device to have a from
> this. See DEVICE NAMES below.
>
> Hmmm. there is some text missing there. It should read:
>
> -a, --auto{=no,yes,md,mdp,part,p}{NN}
> Instruct mdadm to create the device file if needed, possibly
> allocating an unused minor number. "md" causes a non-partition-
> able array to be used. "mdp", "part" or "p" causes a partition-
> able array (2.6 and later) to be used. "yes" requires the named
> md device to have a 'standard' format, and the type and minor
> number will be determined from this. See DEVICE NAMES below.
>
> (typo in the mdadm.8 source file).
Oh good, I though I was going senile... I haven't had a good use for a
partitionable device, although I can think of some unusual applications
for this, such as creating two RAID-6 partitionable arrarys on separate
controllers, then combining a partition from each as RAID-1 for even more
reliability, and doubg RAID-0 over another two to spread head motion for a
very active application.
Yes, I know there are other ways to do that, it was an example...
--
bill davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
