David Greaves said: (by the date of Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:55:44 +0100) > How much later? This will, of course, destroy any data on the array (!) and > you'll need to mkfs again... Just after, I didn't even create LVM volume on it (not mentioning formatting it). > Also, if you don't mind me asking: why did you choose version 1.1 for the > metadata/superblock version? In "time to deprecate old RAID formats" Doug Ledford said, that 1.1 is safest when used with LVM. I wish that this info would get into the man page. I just hope that grub will be able to boot from LVM from '/' partition raid1 (version 1.1), I didn't check this yet. Doug Ledford said: (by the date of Fri, 19 Oct 2007 12:15:34 -0400) > 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. > -- Janek Kozicki | - 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
