David Greaves wrote: > Peter Rabbitson wrote: >> David Greaves wrote: >>> Jan Engelhardt wrote: >>>> This makes 1.0 the default sb type for new arrays. >>>> >>> IIRC there was a discussion a while back on renaming mdadm options >>> (google "Time >>> to deprecate old RAID formats?") and the superblocks to emphasise the >>> location >>> and data structure. Would it be good to introduce the new names at the >>> same time >>> as changing the default format/on-disk-location? >>> >>> David >> Also wasn't the concession to make 1.1 default instead of 1.0 ? >> > IIRC Doug Leford did some digging wrt lilo + grub and found that 1.1 and 1.2 > wouldn't work with them. I'd have to review the thread though... > > David > - > 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 For what it's worth, that was my finding too. -e 0.9+1.0 are fine with GRUB, but 1.1 an 1.2 won't work under the filesystem that contains /boot, at least with GRUB 1.x (I haven't used LILO for some time nor have I tried the development GRUB 2). The reason IIRC boils down to the fact that GRUB 1 isn't MD aware, and the only reason one can "get away" with using it on a RAID 1 setup at all is that the constituent devices present the same data as the composite MD device, from the start. Putting an MD SB at/near the beginning of the device breaks this case and GRUB 1 doesn't know how to deal with it. Cheers Tim - 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
