Doug Ledford wrote: [] > 1.0, 1.1, and 1.2 are the same format, just in different positions on > the disk. Of the three, the 1.1 format is the safest to use since it > won't allow you to accidentally have some sort of metadata between the > beginning of the disk and the raid superblock (such as an lvm2 > superblock), and hence whenever the raid array isn't up, you won't be > able to accidentally mount the lvm2 volumes, filesystem, etc. (In worse > case situations, I've seen lvm2 find a superblock on one RAID1 array > member when the RAID1 array was down, the system came up, you used the > system, the two copies of the raid array were made drastically > inconsistent, then at the next reboot, the situation that prevented the > RAID1 from starting was resolved, and it never know it failed to start > last time, and the two inconsistent members we put back into a clean > array). So, deprecating any of these is not really helpful. And you > need to keep the old 0.90 format around for back compatibility with > thousands of existing raid arrays. Well, I strongly, completely disagree. You described a real-world situation, and that's unfortunate, BUT: for at least raid1, there ARE cases, pretty valid ones, when one NEEDS to mount the filesystem without bringing up raid. Raid1 allows that. /mjt - 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
